Remember me
▼ Content

coral bleaching



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
06-11-2020 19:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I learned the meaning of all the words when I was young and what I learned was reinforced by observing usage, both written and oral.

From?

People, not dictionaries, although people referred to dictionaries to learn how to spell words from time to time.

You're getting wrapped around the axle over dictionaries providing usage guides, often errantly called "definitions," as well as revealing a word's correct spelling. It is helpful to know that a word is an adverb as opposed to an adjective, for example, and to get a general idea of how many people use that word, even if it is erroneous usage.

tmiddles wrote:And what about now? What if you don't know what a word means

Wrong question. You mean to ask what I do when I don't understand what someone means by a particular word. The answer is that I ask that person. I have to ask my children that all the time.

You never answered my questions, Darth EVADER.

1. What do you do when you find an error in a dictionary? Do you simply presume that the dictionary must be correct and that you must be mistaken?
2. How do you reconcile differing dictionaries having different "definitions"? Close doesn't cut it. Different equals contradiction if more than just a usage guide, i.e. a "definition." Ergo, which dictionary do you claim owns English?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-11-2020 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I learned the meaning of all the words when I was young and what I learned was reinforced by observing usage, both written and oral.


From? And what about now? What if you don't know what a word means how do you find out? Wikipedia? INFOWARS?


Wikipedia does not define any word except 'Wikipedia'. Infowars does not define any word except 'Infowars'. Dictionaries do not define words. Web sites do not define words (except their own website name).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-11-2020 21:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...I am going down to Trigg beach to look at the coral reef and take a sample and test the PH value...


Duncan what do you think of my fundamtental rebuttal to your line of inquiry:

Your perception as a human creature: "Hey I'm comfortable so what could be wrong"
Or the perfectly rational: "The temperature changes like 10 degrees every night so who cares about one degree"

Is contradicted by thousands of years of human experience with plants and animals.

What seems to us to be small differences can have a dramatic impact on the type of ecology thriving or failing.

The ice age was not an era when everything was frozen solid. It was a shift of about 7C degrees colder (12F), but it had a dramatic impact on the ecology of the Earth.

I think the real core argument I have is this:

You believe there is a grand conspiracy and fraud being perpetrated.
That has certainly happened and is always possible.

However there is a motive for that fraud as alleged: AGW pitched as a global crisis to motivate massive changes in society that some conspirators will profit from.

So it's reasonable to conclude that actions take prior to AGW as a topic are not part of that conspiracy.

Pre 1980: Tyndall, Fourier, Provost, Planck, the Russian Space program in the 70s, physicists, statisticians, climatologists and science and technology as a whole, can be excluded from the conspiracy.

Right?


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-11-2020 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
duncan61 wrote:
[img][/img]this is the ocean ph

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. pH varies from place to place in the ocean.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-11-2020 22:44
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
[img][/img]this is the ocean ph

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. pH varies from place to place in the ocean.



We'll have to go with what we know. CO2 is not evenly distributed in the oceans. In places where it's above 25° C. or 77° F., where coral is found, warm waters release CO2. Might be why algae likes coral, a steady supply of CO2.
In colder waters like the Southern Ocean or up around Alaska and the Grand Banks, those waters absorb CO2. This increases the amount of phytoplankton. That allows for good fishing.
Of course algae doesn't like warm waters. Just might not be enough CO2 in the waters for them.
And with the Gulf Stream around Florida being over 80° F., any coral reefs? They end around West Palm Beach. It's water temperature: https://www.seatemperature.org/north-america/united-states/west-palm-beach.htm

For Key West: https://www.currentresults.com/Oceans/Temperature/key-west-average-water-temperature.php

It seems they can survive warm waters for a while. Yet why not up the coast of Florida?
07-11-2020 01:11
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
This shows a map of Florida's coral reefs. There are small isolated areas not shown in this map.

https://myfwc.com/research/gis/regional-projects/unified-reef-map/
07-11-2020 02:53
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
Do we have a consensus that the information I shared about the varying sea temperatures of the coast where I live is correct that the coral is perfectly O.K. at temperature ranges from 17.C to mid 30s.My family emmigrated to West Australia April 1967 and soon after that a large loading jetty was built in Kwinana for loading grain on to ships.It is a magnificent shore dive with lots of sea horses if you look carefully.It has many coral species growing on the pylons.Guess what,Its all still there and going fine
07-11-2020 04:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2702)
duncan61 wrote:
Do we have a consensus that the information I shared about the varying sea temperatures of the coast where I live is correct that the coral is perfectly O.K. at temperature ranges from 17.C to mid 30s.My family emmigrated to West Australia April 1967 and soon after that a large loading jetty was built in Kwinana for loading grain on to ships.It is a magnificent shore dive with lots of sea horses if you look carefully.It has many coral species growing on the pylons.Guess what,Its all still there and going fine


I would most definitely trust direct observation, over AL Gore. I live in a climate change ravaged area myself. Really seems odd, that if we are suppose to be completely underwater, why do democrats keep moving to Florida? You'd think they would be fleeing Florida, like rats off a sinking ship. The preach global warming, but move to one of the first places in America, to be destroyed. Maybe they figure we'll survive global warming long enough for the covid thing to run it's course. Our governor isn't playing the plague game, like a lot of those Yankee states. Unfortunately, more democrats, means they bring there foolish beliefs with them, and likely the rioting, looting, and burning, when they don't get what they want. We don't play that crap either, we use real bullets, and not shy about it either.

We go through good years and bad years, just like we have the nearly 40 years I've lived here, and for a long time before. We don't get Red Tide (algae blooms) every year, or bad enough to kill a lot of fish. We get jellyfish washing up on beaches, but not so bad every year, you can't go swimming.

Coral, is like any other living thing. They go through some good years, some lean years, but they have been around a lot longer than we have. Mostly, it's those Norwegian Cruise-line ships, that port over at Canaveral. They tend to purge their sewage tanks, before pulling into port, to save a few bucks on disposal fees. Nasty bastards... Probably think if they foul the beaches, more people will ride on their plague ships...
07-11-2020 05:36
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
Water temperature in Albany today is 17°C/62.6°F.
October average sea temperature in Albany is 17.4°C/63.3°F, the minimum temperature is 15.8°C/60.4°F, and the maximum is 19.1°C/66.4°F. The swimming season in Albany lasts from January to May.

Albany is in the Southern Ocean.It does not get warm like Perth coast.It is deep and pointing directly at Antartica.
07-11-2020 06:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:Duncan you seem to be under the impression there is a theory held by someone that there is universal coral bleaching everywhere all the time due to AGW? There is not.

That's right ... because it's silly to presume that Global Warming is global. In fact, Global Warming predicts there will be Global Cooling and the global Climate is really just whichever local climate cannot be verified at the moment.

tmiddles wrote:Though it's mentioned in trying to freak people out about AGW it's not a good indicator of anything since it can be caused by so many things.

Nope. Nothing real can cause something fictitious. Nothing real can cause anything completely undefined.

.
.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-11-2020 07:30
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
Fake Photographs at Heart of Peter Ridd's Sacking
March 24, 2019 By jennifer Marahosy
EARLY last year a professor of physics at James Cook University was sacked – after a successful career spanning some forty years. Peter Ridd had won many university awards, including the inaugural 'Supervisor of the Year', presumably nominated by one or more of his thirty-something PhD students. He published over 100 scientific papers and earned the university millions of dollars through consultancies. Some claim that it all came to a sorry end because he dared to question the consensus of scientific opinion concerning the health of the Great Barrier Reef – particularly the impact of global warming. The university claims it was because he had become "un-collegial" and did not follow various directives while disclosing confidential information. These issues will be argued in the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane on Tuesday, when the matter is heard by Judge Salvatore Vasta. Very few people realize that at the heart of the case are a couple of what might be best described as "fake-news" photographs.

If Peter Ridd had become un-collegial and disclosed confidential information, it was because he was fed-up with the fake-news many of his colleagues continued to spread. As he wrote in chapter 1 of the book that I edited two years ago, a chapter entitled 'The Extraordinary Resilience of Great Barrier Reef Corals, and Problems with Policy Science':

"I [Peter Ridd] have carried out half-a-dozen audits on some of the science claiming damage to the Great Barrier Reef, and in every case I have discovered serious problems."

Ridd was censored a final time by the University soon after the book chapter was published, and then, when he refused to remain silent about this, he was sacked. His first censoring by the University had been two years earlier, just after he sent Peter Michael, a News Ltd journalists, photographs that showed spectacular and healthy corals growing off Stone Reef not far from Bowen in Central Queensland.


Corals exposed at low tide, off Stone Island. Photograph taken in 2015.
Ridd has spent his entire university career studying the reef – the first decade as part of a team measuring water quality in the inner Great Barrier Reef, including port facilities and river mouths. Ridd was responsible for the invention of three instruments, all built at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University and concerned with measuring the muddiness, technically known as turbidity, of water.

His colleagues, Piers Larcombe and Ken Woolfe, published several seminal papers concluding that the turbidity of the inner reef waters is controlled by the size of the waves varying with the wind and weather, not adjacent land use.*

Yet the popular message from prominent scientists has been that sediment from farming and mining is killing corals. In particular, the "before and after photographs" of Stone Reef have been acclaimed and were promoted by Terry Hughes of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies as evidence that sediment has destroyed the fringing coral reefs off Stone Island.


Historical photographs supposedly taken at the same location circa 1890 (left) and 1994 (right), off Stone Island. The profile of the far horizon is similar, but not the same.
The photographs have now become an iconic symbol of reef ruin, but as Ridd wrote to journalist Peter Michaels:

"I have always been highly sceptical of these photographs ... My own work has shown that this explanation is virtually impossible especially for locations such as this. In addition it does not take account of the fact that these inshore reefs can change dramatically with time especially with the passage of cyclones which can temporarily obliterate them. Ten years after a cyclone they may have fully recovered.

"The presentation of the photographs also gives us the impression that we know where the original 100-year-old picture was taken. In fact, we can only guess within a kilometre or two, and in this area it would not be unusual to find great coral in one spot and nothing a kilometre away. The selection of the position of where the modern photo was taken can thus decide what message we see. Finally, seeing dead reef does not necessarily mean that it died recently. In fact there are literally hundreds of square kilometres of dead reef-flat on the GBR which was killed due to the slow sealevel fall of about a meter that has occurred over the last 5000 years. This has left a lot of coral high and dry at low tide which kills the coral. It is easy to take a picture of a dead reef, but it does not mean it died recently.

"A month or so ago I decided to see if there was good coral in the area that these pictures were taken so I asked a couple of my field technicians to take some photographs in the area with the same island backdrop as the two original pictures. You will note that there is spectacular coral living there – at least in many spots within the area that the original photos were taken." End quote.

I am quoting extracts from the email that Ridd sent to Peter Michael three years ago. He also commented in that email:

"Any decent marine scientist or boat owner around Bowen, could have told you there is lots of coral around Bowen and that it is spectacular."

Rather than investigate, Peter Michael sent the photographs and correspondence from Ridd to Terry Hughes, the scientist who had been claiming these same corals off Stone Island were all dead. That correspondence was immediately passed to university administrators, and then used to censor Peter Ridd for being un-collegial. This began the process which eventually resulted in Peter Ridd's sacking last year, in early 2018.

Seeing is believing, yet the truth in the 2015 photographs showing healthy corals was ignored.

I'm hoping that Peter Ridd's correspondence to journalist Peter Michael will be tabled in the Federal Circuit Court this week for all to see, and for all to judge. There is no need of scientific qualifications to see that there is still spectacular fringing coral reef around Stone Island.

This is but one example of the fake news continually propagated about the imminent demise of the Great Barrier Reef.

Sixteen years ago, I wrote about how a naturally occurring dioxin was incorrectly classified as a pesticide from sugarcane farming and then blamed for the death of two dugongs that had been killed in fishing nets.

A two-year investigation by the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology concluded that this specific dioxin was common in soils along the entire Queensland coastline, and predated the era of European settlement ... however, the fake news about "pesticide kills dugongs" continued to be repeated by the media and was added to a key report by Queensland's then Chief Scientist, Dr Joe Baker.

The litany of false claims when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef is as spectacular as the many healthy clown fish that continue to amuse and entertain anyone who dives into its warm waters.

I'm hopeful that Peter Ridd will win his case this week, but it is likely to be argued on the basis of an academic's right to intellectual freedom. It is unclear how much evidence about the actual state of the Great Barrier Reef will be heard – if any.

If Ridd wins, the assumption may be that this academic is nevertheless wrong in detail – and the Great Barrier Reef is ailing, if not from bad farming practices then from catastrophic human-caused global warming. To report that the Great Barrier Reef may be in good health – or at least that the fringing corals off Stone Island have not been harmed by farming – would be to admit that much of what has been reported over recent decades is fake news. It is. Fake news, and sometimes accompanied by fake photographs.


Clown fish at the Great Barrier Reef – off Cairns, 10th April 2006.
______

* Specifically, the prevailing south-easterly trade winds have a dominant influence. The wind and resulting waves produce a current that flows northward. The current traps sediment in north-facing bays because they are relatively protected from winds blowing from the south-east. Importantly, this research established that any additional sediment coming down the rivers will have no effect on the muddiness of the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.

One of the most important technical papers is 'Increased sediment supply to the Great Barrier Reef will not increase sediment accumulation at most coral reefs' by P. Larcombe and K.J. Woolfe in the journal Coral Reefs, volume 18, page 163-190, published in 1999.

Quoting directly from this technical paper:

"The interplay between coral reefs and terrigenous sediment along the inner-shelf of the GBR shelf can be discussed in terms of two principle components, sediment accumulation and suspended sediment (the latter being the main regional contributor towards turbidity). Sediment accumulation describes the increase in thick- ness of a sediment body, caused by addition of material at its upper surface. In this context, accumulation is a regional geological phenomenon, and has probably played a significant role in controlling the distribution of coral reefs within the GBR at various stages of sea level, primarily because accumulating sediments blanket substrates otherwise suitable for colonisation by corals.

In contrast, turbidity is a transient oceanographic phenomenon, that is temporally and spatially variable because it is largely related to physical forces acting on the sea bed. The role of turbidity in influencing the distribution of corals is thus also spatially variable, related to regional variations in turbidity regimes, and, also on a regional scale, is probably partly controlled by the location of accumulations of muddy sediments.

It is also necessary to distinguish between changes in the turbidity of rivers entering the GBR lagoon and changes in turbidity in the lagoon itself. Few coral reefs occur near river mouths, because of the high turbidity, rates of sediment accumulation, and low availability of suitable substrates generally associated with such environments.

... In most places on the inner shelf, the thickness of the sediment wedge means that there is ample (muddy) sediment immediately available for resuspension. Sediment availability does not limit the concentration of suspended sediment (and largely, turbidity) in the water column, rather the controls are hydrodynamic in nature.
07-11-2020 07:44
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:...I am going down to Trigg beach to look at the coral reef and take a sample and test the PH value...


Duncan what do you think of my fundamtental rebuttal to your line of inquiry:

Your perception as a human creature: "Hey I'm comfortable so what could be wrong"
Or the perfectly rational: "The temperature changes like 10 degrees every night so who cares about one degree"

Is contradicted by thousands of years of human experience with plants and animals.

What seems to us to be small differences can have a dramatic impact on the type of ecology thriving or failing.

The ice age was not an era when everything was frozen solid. It was a shift of about 7C degrees colder (12F), but it had a dramatic impact on the ecology of the Earth.

I think the real core argument I have is this:

You believe there is a grand conspiracy and fraud being perpetrated.
That has certainly happened and is always possible.

However there is a motive for that fraud as alleged: AGW pitched as a global crisis to motivate massive changes in society that some conspirators will profit from.

So it's reasonable to conclude that actions take prior to AGW as a topic are not part of that conspiracy.

Pre 1980: Tyndall, Fourier, Provost, Planck, the Russian Space program in the 70s, physicists, statisticians, climatologists and science and technology as a whole, can be excluded from the conspiracy.

Right?

I am making real life observations on the state of the planet in my location .I know not where my being comfortable fits in to this.If any Flora or Fauna can not survive a 1.0 Degree C warming or cooling then they deserve to go extinct


duncan61
07-11-2020 11:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:I learned the meaning of all the words ...[From]...People, not dictionaries,...

Yet you have the power to decree the meaning of words for all people?:
IBdaMann wrote:...Bleach is required to have a bleaching.

Maybe you should let everyone know they are using the word wrong:
https://uvhero.com/sun-bleaching/
Hey I know you could make an IBDeze dictionary so the world could conform to you.

duncan61 wrote:If any Flora or Fauna can not survive a 1.0 Degree C warming or cooling then they deserve to go extinct

You are arguing against a non-existent theory there Duncan. No one, not Al Gore or Neal DeGrassi claims a 1 degree shift will cause mass extinction.

A 1 degree shift, quickly, is significant though. 2, 3, 4 degrees, again relatively quickly, could be devastating.

The ice age was 7 degrees C cooler.

I think you are using your own perception, your sense of what temperature changes are comfortable, to interpret the threat to the ecology of Earth.

Having a change that is manageable over thousands of years occur in 100 years could be something that causes mass extinction.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 07-11-2020 11:19
07-11-2020 12:29
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
You have completely contradicted yourself.You say one degree does not matter then say 1 degree in 100 years will cause mass extinctions.Which is it dude.Also there is no warming you are being lied to.Where do you you get 2,3,4 from.The Mythbusters did a test with ice statues in a green house with a heat lamp.They had 2 control boxes with air and one box with 7% CO2 and one with Methane.The CO2 box went .9 degree warmer but did not continue to increase and that was at 7% or 70,000ppm what have we learned
07-11-2020 12:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
duncan61 wrote:...You say ...1 degree in 100 years will cause mass extinctions...
If you thought I said that it was a miscommunication.

Also in 100 years the AGW theories are for several degrees. A lot more than 1.

duncan61 wrote:...there is no warming you are being lied to....
Well then I guess you can just stop your inquiry right?

How about this: If they are getting it all wrong someone should get it right.

What is happening with the temperature of Earth? No change? Cooler? Warmer? Why?

Shouldn't that get figured out?
Edited on 07-11-2020 12:37
07-11-2020 13:48
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
No change that can be measured.AGW is a theory the amounts are wrong the models do not work
07-11-2020 20:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
[img][/img]this is the ocean ph

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. pH varies from place to place in the ocean.



We'll have to go with what we know. CO2 is not evenly distributed in the oceans. In places where it's above 25° C. or 77° F., where coral is found, warm waters release CO2. Might be why algae likes coral, a steady supply of CO2.

CO2 is absorbed and released no matter what the water temperature is.
James___ wrote:
In colder waters like the Southern Ocean or up around Alaska and the Grand Banks, those waters absorb CO2. This increases the amount of phytoplankton. That allows for good fishing.

CO2 is absorbed and released no matter what the water temperature is.
James___ wrote:
Of course algae doesn't like warm waters. Just might not be enough CO2 in the waters for them.

Algae does like warm water, just it likes cold water. It grows everywhere, just like grass does.
James___ wrote:
And with the Gulf Stream around Florida being over 80° F., any coral reefs?

Yes.
James___ wrote:
They end around West Palm Beach. It's water temperature:

No. They are everywhere. Divers like to go look at them.
James___ wrote:
For Key West: https://www.currentresults.com/Oceans/Temperature/key-west-average-water-temperature.php

The temperature of water at Key West is unknown.
James___ wrote:
It seems they can survive warm waters for a while. Yet why not up the coast of Florida?

They are up the coast of Florida.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-11-2020 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
duncan61 wrote:
Water temperature in Albany today is 17°C/62.6°F.
October average sea temperature in Albany is 17.4°C/63.3°F, the minimum temperature is 15.8°C/60.4°F, and the maximum is 19.1°C/66.4°F. The swimming season in Albany lasts from January to May.

Albany is in the Southern Ocean.It does not get warm like Perth coast.It is deep and pointing directly at Antartica.


Correction: The water temperature at where the thermometer was stuck in it was 17 degC, not the water of Albany. The water temperature of Albany is unknown.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-11-2020 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I learned the meaning of all the words ...[From]...People, not dictionaries,...

Yet you have the power to decree the meaning of words for all people?:

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Bleach is required to have a bleaching.

Maybe you should let everyone know they are using the word wrong:

He did.
tmiddles wrote:
Hey I know you could make an IBDeze dictionary so the world could conform to you.

He did. Dictionaries do not define words. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:If any Flora or Fauna can not survive a 1.0 Degree C warming or cooling then they deserve to go extinct

You are arguing against a non-existent theory there Duncan. No one, not Al Gore or Neal DeGrassi claims a 1 degree shift will cause mass extinction.

A 1 degree shift, quickly, is significant though. 2, 3, 4 degrees, again relatively quickly, could be devastating.

The ice age was 7 degrees C cooler.

Random numbers used as data. Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
I think you are using your own perception, your sense of what temperature changes are comfortable, to interpret the threat to the ecology of Earth.

Define 'threat to the ecology of Earth'. Answer the other questions put to you.
tmiddles wrote:
Having a change that is manageable over thousands of years occur in 100 years could be something that causes mass extinction.

Fear mongering. Argument from randU fallacy. Pascal's Wager fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-11-2020 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
duncan61 wrote:
You have completely contradicted yourself.You say one degree does not matter then say 1 degree in 100 years will cause mass extinctions.Which is it dude.Also there is no warming you are being lied to.Where do you you get 2,3,4 from.The Mythbusters did a test with ice statues in a green house with a heat lamp.They had 2 control boxes with air and one box with 7% CO2 and one with Methane.The CO2 box went .9 degree warmer but did not continue to increase and that was at 7% or 70,000ppm what have we learned


Good catch. I missed that one. Yes. He locked himself into another paradox.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-11-2020 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...You say ...1 degree in 100 years will cause mass extinctions...
If you thought I said that it was a miscommunication.
No, it's what you said. You are denying your own argument.
tmiddles wrote:
Also in 100 years the AGW theories are for several degrees. A lot more than 1.

Goalpost fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...there is no warming you are being lied to....
Well then I guess you can just stop your inquiry right?
What inquiry?
tmiddles wrote:
How about this: If they are getting it all wrong someone should get it right.
You can't make a right out of a wrong using statistics. Divisional error fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
What is happening with the temperature of Earth? No change? Cooler? Warmer? Why?

Shouldn't that get figured out?
RQAA.

No argument presented. Denial of math. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-11-2020 22:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tgoebbles wrote:Yet you have the power to decree the meaning of words for all people?

Not for all people, only for people like you who absolutely NEED someone to do their thinking done for them. Dropouts like you who never learned the meaning of words NEED people like me who did. You'd be lost without people like me ... ummm ... actually you are lost regardless.

I paid attention in school. You didn't. I'm not a total moron. You are.

Hey, I know, you could make a tgoebbles propagana dictionary so all discussions could just start by flipping to the channel to Comedy Central.

tmiddles wrote:You are arguing against a non-existent theory there Duncan.

Hey dropout, he was expressing his view. He's correct as well. It makes a mockery of all of your Global Warming dogma. It's funny how you take immense pride in your shame.

tmiddles wrote: No one, not Al Gore or Neal DeGrassi claims a 1 degree shift will cause mass extinction.

You implied it directly with your uber-hype of "a small change in the average global temperature will have huge consequences" (paraphrasing).

You're a moron.

tmiddles wrote:A 1 degree shift, quickly, is significant though. 2, 3, 4 degrees, again relatively quickly, could be devastating.

Once again, rich in fear-mongering panic-driving hype while remaining devoid of any specifics so you can ALWAYS say "I never said that!"

You are a liar.

tmiddles wrote:The ice age was 7 degrees C cooler.

Because this is "what we know", thanks to your omniscience.

tmiddles wrote:I think you are using your own perception, your sense of what temperature changes are comfortable, to interpret the threat to the ecology of Earth.

Exactly. He is an intelligent, rational adult who thinks for himself.

You, on the other hand, OBEY those who tell you what to believe, no matter how absurd.

tmiddles wrote:Having a change that is manageable

No one manages any temperature changes.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-11-2020 22:26
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2702)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I learned the meaning of all the words ...[From]...People, not dictionaries,...

Yet you have the power to decree the meaning of words for all people?:
IBdaMann wrote:...Bleach is required to have a bleaching.

Maybe you should let everyone know they are using the word wrong:
https://uvhero.com/sun-bleaching/
Hey I know you could make an IBDeze dictionary so the world could conform to you.

duncan61 wrote:If any Flora or Fauna can not survive a 1.0 Degree C warming or cooling then they deserve to go extinct

You are arguing against a non-existent theory there Duncan. No one, not Al Gore or Neal DeGrassi claims a 1 degree shift will cause mass extinction.

A 1 degree shift, quickly, is significant though. 2, 3, 4 degrees, again relatively quickly, could be devastating.

The ice age was 7 degrees C cooler.

I think you are using your own perception, your sense of what temperature changes are comfortable, to interpret the threat to the ecology of Earth.

Having a change that is manageable over thousands of years occur in 100 years could be something that causes mass extinction.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN


Load of crap! Every day there is 2-3 C shift, pretty much every where on the planet. Is 12 hours quick? Seems like a blink of the eye, compared to 100 years... The temperature change is some areas is also much greater, also some seasonal surprises. Has caused mass fatalities, like covid does. We aren't all weak, frail, basement-dwellers. I lived long enough, to have survived heat waves, hurricanes, and brutal cold winters, without hiding, and praying for it to end soon. I still managed to make to work, and get on with my life. You have to work to survive, when you rely on everybody else to do your work for you, you die.
07-11-2020 23:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
duncan61 wrote:
No change that can be measured.
OK so you're saying we lack the ability to measure. Which means we don't have the information. The change may or may not be there we just can't find out because we lack the technology to do so right?

duncan61 wrote:...the amounts are wrong...
Wait a minute! I thought we didn't know the amounts?

This is the classic:
1- It cannot be measured
2- We know the measurements and they prove it wrong

You can't have it both ways duncan!

HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...A 1 degree shift, quickly, is significant though. ...The ice age was 7 degrees C cooler.

Load of crap! Every day there is 2-3 C shift, pretty much every where on the planet. Is 12 hours quick?...
It's more than that isn't it? Day to night can have a 10C swing easy (18F).

So some quick questions Harvey:
1- Do you believe the Earth ever had an ice age and that the estimate that the last ice age was just 7C cooler is accurate?
2- Wouldn't adding 4C to high temp of the hottest days you've experienced in your life be pretty significant?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
07-11-2020 23:59
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
No change that can be measured.
OK so you're saying we lack the ability to measure. Which means we don't have the information. The change may or may not be there we just can't find out because we lack the technology to do so right?

duncan61 wrote:...the amounts are wrong...
Wait a minute! I thought we didn't know the amounts?

This is the classic:
1- It cannot be measured
2- We know the measurements and they prove it wrong

You can't have it both ways duncan!

HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...A 1 degree shift, quickly, is significant though. ...The ice age was 7 degrees C cooler.

Load of crap! Every day there is 2-3 C shift, pretty much every where on the planet. Is 12 hours quick?...
It's more than that isn't it? Day to night can have a 10C swing easy (18F).

So some quick questions Harvey:
1- Do you believe the Earth ever had an ice age and that the estimate that the last ice age was just 7C cooler is accurate?
2- Wouldn't adding 4C to high temp of the hottest days you've experienced in your life be pretty significant?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN



During the last ice age, there were what's called "climate ripples". Since the scientist (ice core researcher) who wrote about this is Danish, I'll consider it most likely that the temperatures he referenced were in C.
He gave an example that if it cooled or warmed by 18° in the higher latitudes, that the change in the southern hemisphere was both the opposite and about 1/2 of the change in temperature. Basically if it warmed by 18° in the north then it cooled by about 9° in the southern hemisphere.
There's more to an ice age than what usually is made known. As far as these guys go, the earth is flat.
08-11-2020 01:18
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
This is the classic:
1- It cannot be measured
2- We know the measurements and they prove it wrong

You can't have it both ways duncan!
I would like to respond to this.I have proven to myself by using a laser temperature reader that there is such a variance in a single room that the correct AVERAGE of the room is complicated to calculate and even harder to claim a shift in average.I can read the temperature of the glass window and the wall and my monitor screen but what is the actual temperature of the room.NASA are claiming to know the average temperature of the entire Earth in one go by measuring radiance from the surface and putting it through their own computer model.I know the temperature in the box at the end of the runway at Amberley airforce base has shown a 1 degree C cooling since 1942.I have seen it and the data which after homogenisation shows a 1.76 C warming I could write 10 pages along these lines but you get why I am curious

Part 2 Unlike some posters I agree with many scientific podcasts I have seen that CO2 does increase the planet temperature by reflecting radiance back to the surface however the amounts are miniscule at 400ppm and the effect is tiny.Mythbusters were all proud of themselves for proving CO2 increases temperature however it was noted in the comments that the temperature went to 0.9 C more than the standard control but did not continue to rise and that was at 70,000ppm. To achieve this saturation we would have to cut down every tree and burn everything and would probably still not get it that high so the claims that at 600ppm we will gain 2,3,4 degrees is not true.Assuming we can get the saturation that high.I put my CO2 sensor on for a client who was interested and he noted the reader bounced around from 383-412ppm.

I did some research on Muja power station yesterday and learned that it has had major upgrades since being commisioned in 21 April 1966 It is in Collie and uses locally mined coal.Half of the turbines are out and the remaining steam turbines are only used when needed and the entire plant will be decommissioned in 2024.W.A will be powered by renewable energy by then and Wagerup will be the backup supply which is natural gas turbines.A lot of regional areas are going solar with gas turbines as back up.If you look at a map of Australia you will notice that the bottom corner of W.A. is green and the rest of the state to Broome is brown.We get a lot of sunshine in Regional areas
08-11-2020 11:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
First of all thank you for a well considered and full post.

duncan61 wrote:
...I have proven to myself ...the correct AVERAGE of the room is complicated...


I'd like to focus on this one point first.

We have the concept of the average temperature of a complex collection of matter.

You think NASA is motivated to commit fraud in claiming Earth's average ground level temp is a particular range.

So let's set aside any subject where a motive for fraud is suspected.

What is something you think the temperature can be determined for. Anything. Here are some options:
A human body head to toe
A human body's core
The air inside your refrigerator
A block of iron resting on a hot plate

If it is impossible to determine the temperature of anything that's all that should be said when a temperature is claimed.

Also the thermometer at the airport is a collection of molecules with varying levels of thermal energy. The reading is a proxy measurement of the effect on the electrical conductivity of some of those molecules.

I hope you'll agree this particular question: can temperature be known, is a fundamental and primary issue that doesn't require using suspect sources like NASA or alleging a conspiracy.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 08-11-2020 11:01
08-11-2020 12:56
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
How do you measure the entire planet average?? And then claim it is different.I say it can not be done.It is too complicated.Sure you can check a single object but the whole planet in one go and how do you explain Amberley
08-11-2020 14:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
duncan61 wrote:
How do you measure the entire planet average?? ...


Identify something you are confident it's possible to determine the temperature of.
08-11-2020 16:00
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
How do you measure the entire planet average?? ...


Identify something you are confident it's possible to determine the temperature of.



What they do not realize is that certain points can be picked at sea, on the oceans, in the mountains and deserts or out in the country and verify them. With the technology available, that's easy enough to do.
What they're trying to do is support ITN's claim that microwave energy cannot be manipulated for such purposes. They'd have you believe that using a cellphone isn't possible. Just look at all the random numbers. And each number has up to 395 voice channels.
The "Home System" (your network) will identify your phone if are making a call or someone is calling you. This most likely is a default setting between calls. These guys simply do not understand that if you are near 3 cell towers, your position will be known within a couple of meters/6 feet. That's because those cell towers will determine which one you are closest to because of the lag created by your distance from the tower.
Another example is Duncan61's fish finder. If 3 are used sand all are pointed down and towards the center, then sea temperature at depth and a specific location can be known.
And with picking various locations around the planet, even ships have thermometers on them. This is an example about using thermometers to calibrate the methodology using satellites to measure the temperature globally.
08-11-2020 18:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
No change that can be measured.
OK so you're saying we lack the ability to measure. Which means we don't have the information. The change may or may not be there we just can't find out because we lack the technology to do so right?

duncan61 wrote:...the amounts are wrong...
Wait a minute! I thought we didn't know the amounts?
You don't.
tmiddles wrote:
This is the classic:
1- It cannot be measured
2- We know the measurements and they prove it wrong
False dichotomy via false equivalence fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You can't have it both ways duncan!
Fallacy fallacy. He is not arguing both ways. You are comparing a false equivalence.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...A 1 degree shift, quickly, is significant though. ...The ice age was 7 degrees C cooler.

Load of crap! Every day there is 2-3 C shift, pretty much every where on the planet. Is 12 hours quick?...
It's more than that isn't it? Day to night can have a 10C swing easy (18F).

A day/night temperature shift can vary by quite a bit, especially in desert climates.
tmiddles wrote:
So some quick questions Harvey:
1- Do you believe the Earth ever had an ice age and that the estimate that the last ice age was just 7C cooler is accurate?
2- Wouldn't adding 4C to high temp of the hottest days you've experienced in your life be pretty significant?

Speculation and conclusion based on speculation. You have no data.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-11-2020 20:01
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
@All, with the last ice age, can you consider that the ice age/glaciers were mostly above 47° N. Lat. And when this happened, it was actually warmer in the southern hemisphere? This bevavior has been observed in climate ripples during the last ice age.
With the warming we are experiencing now, vents in the sea floor and the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica might have something to do with things.
08-11-2020 22:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
First of all thank you for a well considered and full post.

duncan61 wrote:
...I have proven to myself ...the correct AVERAGE of the room is complicated...


I'd like to focus on this one point first.

We have the concept of the average temperature of a complex collection of matter.

You think NASA is motivated to commit fraud in claiming Earth's average ground level temp is a particular range.

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
So let's set aside any subject where a motive for fraud is suspected.

You can't.
tmiddles wrote:
What is something you think the temperature can be determined for. Anything. Here are some options:
A human body head to toe
A human body's core
The air inside your refrigerator
A block of iron resting on a hot plate

Obviously you have no idea what temperature means. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
If it is impossible to determine the temperature of anything that's all that should be said when a temperature is claimed.

Also the thermometer at the airport is a collection of molecules with varying levels of thermal energy. The reading is a proxy measurement of the effect on the electrical conductivity of some of those molecules.

Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
I hope you'll agree this particular question: can temperature be known, is a fundamental and primary issue that doesn't require using suspect sources like NASA or alleging a conspiracy.

Temperature is a scalar. It is not a range. Temperature is already an average. You can't have an average of an average. You are denying the 0th law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-11-2020 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
How do you measure the entire planet average?? ...


Identify something you are confident it's possible to determine the temperature of.


Divisional error fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-11-2020 23:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
duncan61 wrote: How do you measure the entire planet average?? And then claim it is different.I say it can not be done.It is too complicated.Sure you can check a single object but the whole planet in one go and how do you explain Amberley


tgoebbles argues two things:

1. you cannot know the temperature of collections of molecules, e.g. a rock, because it's too complex, and ...

2. the temperature of the undefined mega-volume of Denver is "what we know."

I feel sorry for you if you are operating under the impression that you are going to somehow get some form of rational argument from tgoebbles. He will disagree with everything you say, no matter how common-sense, if it represents a threat to his Global Warming dogma.

Please interpret my above comments merely as "expectation management" and nothing more.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-11-2020 23:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
1. you cannot know the temperature of collections of molecules, e.g. a rock, because it's too complex, and ...
.


Of course you can, everything is complex and and you can know the temperature of anything with some margin or error at some confidence level.

Pretending I'm the one claiming temperature cannot be known is pathetic IBD.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 08-11-2020 23:57
08-11-2020 23:56
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
Call me a wimp but I can not put forward any more logic it comes back too distorted.I am going to go free dive for lobsters before they all melt in our acidic Indian Ocean and while there is still coral
09-11-2020 02:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. you cannot know the temperature of collections of molecules, e.g. a rock, because it's too complex, and ...
.


Of course you can, everything is complex and and you can know the temperature of anything with some margin or error at some confidence level.

Temperature is not a statistical analysis. There is no such thing as 'confidence level'. You have no idea what a margin of error is. I've already explained it to you.
tmiddles wrote:
Pretending I'm the one claiming temperature cannot be known is pathetic IBD.

He didn't. You are lying again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-11-2020 15:57
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2702)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. you cannot know the temperature of collections of molecules, e.g. a rock, because it's too complex, and ...
.


Of course you can, everything is complex and and you can know the temperature of anything with some margin or error at some confidence level.

Pretending I'm the one claiming temperature cannot be known is pathetic IBD.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN


Confidence, means the same thing as faith, it's cult-science, how strongly you 'believe' something to be true. If you want consensus based facts, then you should have confidence in God, since billions of people worldwide, believe. Doesn't matter what your cult-science believes, God is running the show, and will decide our fate.
09-11-2020 17:51
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. you cannot know the temperature of collections of molecules, e.g. a rock, because it's too complex, and ...
.


Of course you can, everything is complex and and you can know the temperature of anything with some margin or error at some confidence level.

Pretending I'm the one claiming temperature cannot be known is pathetic IBD.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN


Confidence, means the same thing as faith, it's cult-science, how strongly you 'believe' something to be true. If you want consensus based facts, then you should have confidence in God, since billions of people worldwide, believe. Doesn't matter what your cult-science believes, God is running the show, and will decide our fate.



Smelting has been around since the Iron Age. People who produce raw metals have confidence in the smelting process. And when an employee uses a jackhammer to clean out a pot, they too have confidence that the jack hammer will be up to the task.
Edited on 09-11-2020 17:54
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate coral bleaching:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact