Remember me
▼ Content

Great Barrier Reef


Great Barrier Reef29-11-2016 10:42
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The Great Barrier Reef has suffered its worst bleaching event on record.

See here for more details:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38127320
29-11-2016 12:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
climate scientist wrote:
The Great Barrier Reef has suffered its worst bleaching event on record.

See here for more details:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38127320

There was no bleach. There were no caustic chemicals of any sort.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
01-12-2016 14:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, I know I said that I left, but this is just too stupid to ignore.

"Bleach: whiten by exposure to sunlight or by a chemical process"
"deprive of vitality or substance"

Coral bleaching is the process of turning coral reefs white by increasing the temperature of the seawater. Either you're an idiot or you're incompetent, because "there was no bleach" is not a refutation of any sort. (Or you're a troll.)
01-12-2016 14:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, I know I said that I left, but this is just too stupid to ignore.

You had never left. You simply went into a cowardly retreat and lurked ... until something riled your religious sensitivities enough to compel you to post again.

In this case my non-acceptance of your fear-mongering hype was too much for you to bear. You felt your faith being put in jeopardy and you lashed out. I get it.

There is no bleach involved in coral expelling algae and there is no "ocean acidification."

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
01-12-2016 21:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, I know I said that I left, but this is just too stupid to ignore.

You had never left. You simply went into a cowardly retreat and lurked ... until something riled your religious sensitivities enough to compel you to post again.

In this case my non-acceptance of your fear-mongering hype was too much for you to bear. You felt your faith being put in jeopardy and you lashed out. I get it.

Ugh, could you get off your high horse for just a few minutes? It's quite tiring.
There is no bleach involved in coral expelling algae

And nobody ever claimed that there was.

Oh? What's that you say? Why'd we call it coral bleaching then? Good question! (I mean, it's not actually that good of a question... it's like "how come there's no greenhouses involved in the GHE", but I won't complain. Assuming good faith and whatnot.)

In its usual or mundane sense, to "bleach" is to whiten clothing. The word comes from the Old English word "blǣc" (that's similar to blaec, if it doesn't show up), which means "pale". It is etymologically similar to the word "bleak", meaning barren, desolate, stark; cold, miserable; or forbidding.

The chemical referred to as "bleach" is either sodium hypoclorite or hydrogen peroxide. These were developed in the 18th century, but the bleaching process, using either chemicals or the Sun, has been known and used for millenia.

We can generalize the first definition to whitening of any object due to either a chemical process or the Sun. From there, we can further generalize to whitening in general.

Coral bleaching is the expulsion or loss of algal pigments from coral. Since this algae produces roughly 90% of the coral's energy, bleached corals eventually die from lack of energy, usually. Needless to say, this is not good. However, I will say it, because you might not know that.

Coral bleaching can be caused by increasing oceanic temperatures, which has been measured by the NOAA.


See? Temperature measurements.

and there is no "ocean acidification."

There does indeed exist the phenomenon of decreasing oceanic pH. The pH is still above 7 (that means it's still basic), but it is getting closer to 7 (it is becoming less basic) over time.

Which of the following statements do you deny?

1. Humans have burned significant amounts of fossil fuels.
2. The burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.
3. Carbon dioxide, in the presence of water, results in the production of carbonic acid in the water.
4. Carbonic acid, when placed into seawater, results in the pH of said water decreasing.
5. This phenomenon is known as ocean acidification.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
01-12-2016 22:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: There is no bleach involved in coral expelling algae

And nobody ever claimed that there was.

You are attempting to redefine the word "bleaching" which necessarily involves bleach.

The simple loss of color has other words, e.g. "fading," "decolorizing," "whitening," etc...

You can whiten something with bleach but you can't bleach something without bleach ... unless you are dishonestly trying to hijack a term involving caustic chemicals for the purpose of fear-mongering for the warmizombie cause.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
01-12-2016 23:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
jwoodward48 wrote:

Which of the following statements do you deny?

1. Humans have burned significant amounts of fossil fuels.

Fossils don't burn.
jwoodward48 wrote:
2. The burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.

Fossils don't burn. Burning any fuel that happens to contain carbon does produce carbon dioxide.
jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Carbon dioxide, in the presence of water, results in the production of carbonic acid in the water.
Most carbon dioxide simply stays dissolved in the water. That also returns to the air. A small amount turns into carbonic acid. This is necessary for shellfish to survive, since it is this acid that erodes calcium deposits on the ocean floor into solution, making calcium available for shellfish to build their shells.
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. Carbonic acid, when placed into seawater, results in the pH of said water decreasing.
Not permanently. It is used up in the process of helping shellfish survive.
jwoodward48 wrote:
5. This phenomenon is known as ocean acidification.

Redefinition: acidification. This is NOT the definition of acidification. You cannot acidify anything unless it is neutral or acid already. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

I suggest you look up the meaning of pH.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2016 01:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Fossil fuels burn you idiot.
02-12-2016 01:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
spot wrote:Fossil fuels burn you idiot.

Check the words.

Fuels burn. Fossils do not.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
02-12-2016 10:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I think the term 'fossil fuel' is well known I certainly know what is being referred to when I see those two words in conjunction and I would expect a super genius to as well. It's like an ass is beast of burden popular in bible stories and a hole is a danger to pedestrians and should be coned off but put those two words together and it describes you perfectly.
02-12-2016 11:51
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"The acidity of any solution is determined by the relative concentration of hydrogen ions (H+). A larger concentration of H+ ions in a solution corresponds to higher acidity, which is measured as a lower pH. When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it creates carbonic acid (H2CO3) and liberates H+, which subsequently reacts with carbonate ions (CO32−) and aragonite (the stable form of calcium carbonate) to form bicarbonate (HCO3−). At present seawater is extremely rich in dissolved carbonate minerals. However, as ocean acidity increases, carbonate ion concentrations fall.
The absorption of CO2 largely results from the dissolution of the gas into the upper layers of the ocean, but CO2 is also brought into the oceans through photosynthesis and respiration. Algae and other marine photosynthesizers take in CO2 and store it in their tissues as carbon. Carbon is then passed to zooplankton and other organisms through the food chain, and these organisms can release CO2 to the oceans through respiration. In addition, when marine organisms die and fall to the ocean floor, CO2 is released through the process of decomposition."

From: https://www.britannica.com/science/ocean-acidification
02-12-2016 12:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
climate scientist wrote:
"The acidity of any solution is determined by the relative concentration of hydrogen ions (H+). A larger concentration of H+ ions in a solution corresponds to higher acidity, which is measured as a lower pH. When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it creates carbonic acid (H2CO3) and liberates H+, which subsequently reacts with carbonate ions (CO32−) and aragonite (the stable form of calcium carbonate) to form bicarbonate (HCO3−). At present seawater is extremely rich in dissolved carbonate minerals. However, as ocean acidity increases, carbonate ion concentrations fall.
The absorption of CO2 largely results from the dissolution of the gas into the upper layers of the ocean, but CO2 is also brought into the oceans through photosynthesis and respiration. Algae and other marine photosynthesizers take in CO2 and store it in their tissues as carbon. Carbon is then passed to zooplankton and other organisms through the food chain, and these organisms can release CO2 to the oceans through respiration. In addition, when marine organisms die and fall to the ocean floor, CO2 is released through the process of decomposition."

From: https://www.britannica.com/science/ocean-acidification


You should alert Brittanica to this error.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
02-12-2016 20:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
I think the term 'fossil fuel' is well known I certainly know what is being referred to when I see those two words in conjunction and I would expect a super genius to as well. It's like an ass is beast of burden popular in bible stories and a hole is a danger to pedestrians and should be coned off but put those two words together and it describes you perfectly.


The term 'fossil fuel' is well propagandized that is true. That doesn't make fuel a fossil, or fossils fuel.

So are you saying an **** is a pothole left in the street by too much traffic with people and their asses?

Or are potholes really made by pots?


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2016 21:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I think the term 'fossil fuel' is well known I certainly know what is being referred to when I see those two words in conjunction and I would expect a super genius to as well. It's like an ass is beast of burden popular in bible stories and a hole is a danger to pedestrians and should be coned off but put those two words together and it describes you perfectly.


The term 'fossil fuel' is well propagandized that is true. That doesn't make fuel a fossil, or fossils fuel.

So are you saying an **** is a pothole left in the street by too much traffic with people and their asses?

Or are potholes really made by pots?

That's the word. Fossil fuels are fuels derived from ancient organisms. If you'd like to go on a word-crusade, do it somewhere else.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
02-12-2016 21:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
"The acidity of any solution is determined by the relative concentration of hydrogen ions (H+). A larger concentration of H+ ions in a solution corresponds to higher acidity, which is measured as a lower pH. When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it creates carbonic acid (H2CO3) and liberates H+, which subsequently reacts with carbonate ions (CO32−) and aragonite (the stable form of calcium carbonate) to form bicarbonate (HCO3−). At present seawater is extremely rich in dissolved carbonate minerals. However, as ocean acidity increases, carbonate ion concentrations fall.
The absorption of CO2 largely results from the dissolution of the gas into the upper layers of the ocean, but CO2 is also brought into the oceans through photosynthesis and respiration. Algae and other marine photosynthesizers take in CO2 and store it in their tissues as carbon. Carbon is then passed to zooplankton and other organisms through the food chain, and these organisms can release CO2 to the oceans through respiration. In addition, when marine organisms die and fall to the ocean floor, CO2 is released through the process of decomposition."

From: https://www.britannica.com/science/ocean-acidification


You should alert Brittanica to this error.

.


Sources, citations, FACTS don't matter! If I appear to be in error - nope! The REST OF THE WORLD is WRONG!

Your life must be pretty nice.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
02-12-2016 22:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

Which of the following statements do you deny?

1. Humans have burned significant amounts of fossil fuels.

Fossils don't burn.

Fossil fuels burn.
jwoodward48 wrote:
2. The burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.

Fossils don't burn. Burning any fuel that happens to contain carbon does produce carbon dioxide.

So your objection is moot - humans are indeed putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Carbon dioxide, in the presence of water, results in the production of carbonic acid in the water.
Most carbon dioxide simply stays dissolved in the water. That also returns to the air. A small amount turns into carbonic acid. This is necessary for shellfish to survive, since it is this acid that erodes calcium deposits on the ocean floor into solution, making calcium available for shellfish to build their shells.

Some amount of carbonic acid is useful, yes! Good point! But too much can be bad.

I never said that all of the carbon dioxide was turned into carbonic acid, just that increased atmospheric CO2 levels are correlated with a decrease in oceanic pH.
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. Carbonic acid, when placed into seawater, results in the pH of said water decreasing.
Not permanently. It is used up in the process of helping shellfish survive.

...do you have a source for that? For the shellfish to 'absorb' this much carbonic acid, the carbonic acid level would need to be a limiting factor on the shellfish population, and food and habitat size would need to be negligible. This seems... unlikely.
jwoodward48 wrote:
5. This phenomenon is known as ocean acidification.

Redefinition: acidification. This is NOT the definition of acidification. You cannot acidify anything unless it is neutral or acid already. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

I suggest you look up the meaning of pH.

I know what pH is - it's a measure of the acidity/alkalinity of a solution. It's based on the concentration of H+ ions IIRC.

Dealkanization is a mouthful, so we say acidification, because one definition of the latter is:

To acidify something is to... make it more acidic.


That's the definition used. Do people see "acid oceans" as SCARY and DANGEROUS? Of course! There are fearmongers on every side, and ACID and NUCLEAR POWER and RADIATION and such always produce a fearful backlash.

But was this intentional? I don't think so. And does it mean that the ocean isn't becoming less alkaline? Hell no.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
02-12-2016 22:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I think the term 'fossil fuel' is well known I certainly know what is being referred to when I see those two words in conjunction and I would expect a super genius to as well. It's like an ass is beast of burden popular in bible stories and a hole is a danger to pedestrians and should be coned off but put those two words together and it describes you perfectly.


The term 'fossil fuel' is well propagandized that is true. That doesn't make fuel a fossil, or fossils fuel.

So are you saying an **** is a pothole left in the street by too much traffic with people and their asses?

Or are potholes really made by pots?

That's the word. Fossil fuels are fuels derived from ancient organisms. If you'd like to go on a word-crusade, do it somewhere else.


I know what fossils are. That's why I know they don't burn.

So what do you consider 'fossil' fuels?


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2016 23:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

Which of the following statements do you deny?

1. Humans have burned significant amounts of fossil fuels.

Fossils don't burn.

Fossil fuels burn.

Fossils aren't fuels. They don't burn.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
2. The burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.

Fossils don't burn. Burning any fuel that happens to contain carbon does produce carbon dioxide.

So your objection is moot - humans are indeed putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Carbon dioxide, in the presence of water, results in the production of carbonic acid in the water.
Most carbon dioxide simply stays dissolved in the water. That also returns to the air. A small amount turns into carbonic acid. This is necessary for shellfish to survive, since it is this acid that erodes calcium deposits on the ocean floor into solution, making calcium available for shellfish to build their shells.

Some amount of carbonic acid is useful, yes! Good point! But too much can be bad.

How much is 'too much'? Do you even know?
jwoodward48 wrote:
I never said that all of the carbon dioxide was turned into carbonic acid, just that increased atmospheric CO2 levels are correlated with a decrease in oceanic pH.

No, but you conveniently left it out, too. You also left out what quantity you consider 'too much'.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. Carbonic acid, when placed into seawater, results in the pH of said water decreasing.
Not permanently. It is used up in the process of helping shellfish survive.

...do you have a source for that? For the shellfish to 'absorb' this much carbonic acid, the carbonic acid level would need to be a limiting factor on the shellfish population, and food and habitat size would need to be negligible. This seems... unlikely.

I do not depend on Link Wars to make my point. If you want to research it, be my guest. I don't support the lazy. Shellfish do not use carbonic acid. The use the calcium brought into solution by it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
5. This phenomenon is known as ocean acidification.

Redefinition: acidification. This is NOT the definition of acidification. You cannot acidify anything unless it is neutral or acid already. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

I suggest you look up the meaning of pH.

I know what pH is - it's a measure of the acidity/alkalinity of a solution. It's based on the concentration of H+ ions IIRC.

Dealkanization is a mouthful, so we say acidification, because one definition of the latter is:

You are arguing over the addition of ONE letter as a mouthful??? Maybe you had better study some chemistry to learn what the correct word is.
jwoodward48 wrote:
To acidify something is to... make it more acidic.


That's the definition used.
The oceans are not acidic. You can't make them MORE acidic if they aren't acidic in the first place. The oceans are alkaline.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Do people see "acid oceans" as SCARY and DANGEROUS? Of course! There are fearmongers on every side, and ACID and NUCLEAR POWER and RADIATION and such always produce a fearful backlash.

I think you've got a good bead on this part.
jwoodward48 wrote:
But was this intentional? I don't think so.
Really? After naming such an obvious technique for scaremongering?
jwoodward48 wrote:
And does it mean that the ocean isn't becoming less alkaline? Hell no.

I haven't seen any such data. Are you going to run into a fake statistics problem again?


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2016 00:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote:Sources, citations, FACTS don't matter! If I appear to be in error - nope! The REST OF THE WORLD is WRONG!

Your life must be pretty nice.

So you think Brittanica is perfect and is incapable of making even the slightest mistake, even when spot points one out you!

Your life of denial must be very comfortable.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
03-12-2016 00:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote:Dealkanization is a mouthful, so we say acidification, because one definition of the latter is:

To acidify something is to... make it more acidic.


That's the definition used.

The only people who insist on using the term "acidification" are the incorrigible science deniers.

Chemistry (i.e. science) established the definitions, one of which is that any pH value that moves toward "nuetral" is "neutralizing."

For a solution to "acidify" it must be an alkaline (base) solution that crosses over neutral into "acidity." The oceans have never done that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
03-12-2016 00:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Sources, citations, FACTS don't matter! If I appear to be in error - nope! The REST OF THE WORLD is WRONG!

Your life must be pretty nice.

So you think Brittanica is perfect and is incapable of making even the slightest mistake, even when spot points one out you!

Your life of denial must be very comfortable.


.


Brittanica disagrees with me, therefore Brittanica must be wrong. Nice logic.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
03-12-2016 00:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote:Brittanica disagrees with me, therefore Brittanica must be wrong. Nice logic.

Aaah, so your comments are stupid because you jumped into the middle of a conversation and ignored the preceding context.

OK. Dismissed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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




Join the debate Great Barrier Reef:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Great News! Al Roker has Addressed Climate Change for us!221-07-2019 22:18
Report: Great Lakes feeling effects of rapid climate warming (Update)122-03-2019 17:37
Climate Change Linked To Declining Bird Populations In Idaho And Across Great Basin220-03-2019 17:52
Great Barrier Reef Problem903-06-2016 19:48
Great Question (Re: El Nino)329-11-2015 03:21
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact