Remember me
▼ Content

Is There Climate Change?


Is There Climate Change?13-11-2015 20:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.


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
13-11-2015 21:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.

1. No. There is no hard definition on the period of weather to define 'climate'.
2. Due to 1, there is no unit of measurement possible.
3. Due to 2, there is no function possible.
3a. There is no such thing as a first derivative of a function that does not exist, therefore, Climate Change is not definable by this method.

Suggested answer for the bonus question: It depends on the recency, type, and dosage of the last mind altering drug that was taken.
14-11-2015 01:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Yet another Sky Dragon Slayer thread? Great!

We could start other such informative and thought provoking threads with similar questions like:

Is the earth flat?
Is the earth more than 10,000 years old?
Do owls exist?*
Are there hats?*



* (courtesy of John Oliver on Last Week Tonight)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg



Edited on 14-11-2015 01:37
14-11-2015 05:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Ceist wrote:Is the earth flat?
Is the earth more than 10,000 years old?


Thank you. I do appreciate your emphasis on equating questions about "climate change" to WACKY religious views.


.


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
14-11-2015 06:37
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@IB - Could you explain the third question? I'm not sure I got it.
15-11-2015 03:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Well if someone doesn't want to spend many years studying the foundational sciences and all the evidence themselves, they can look at what the National Academy of Sciences says (and every Science Institution in the world). Or... they can listen to an anonymous internet poster who rejects science, never posts any evidence or valid sources for their imaginary pseudoscience claims, (because there is none) and calls everyone morons.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf

Chapter 1
What is Climate?



Edited on 15-11-2015 03:42
15-11-2015 03:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Ceist wrote: Well if someone doesn't want to spend many years studying the foundational sciences and all the evidence themselves, ...

You got that right. I'm not interested in studying the foundational "The Science" nor any of the sacred "evidence" suggesting the dogma is true.

Ceist wrote: they can look at what the National Academy of Sciences says (and every Science Institution in the world).

I'm not interested in what anyone else has to say on the matter. I'm only interested in what you have to say.

Besides, the National Academy of Sciences has no representative here in this discussion to answer questions.

So, Ceist, in your own words, what is "climate"?

Please specify whether "climate" is a natural phenomenon that is measureable/observable or whether it is a completely notional concept, i.e. one of trends/averages/statistics... *or* whether you need to claim that it is both.


.


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
15-11-2015 04:31
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
It's as big a waste of time engaging with a Sky Dragon Slayer about the 'greenhouse' effect as it is arguing with a Young Earth Creationist or flat-earther about the age or shape of the earth. They are completely resistant to all evidence, science, facts and logic.

The Sky Dragon Slayers' motivated reasoning is based on their extreme ideological beliefs combined with a severe case of the Dunning Kruger effect, (including inventing pseudoscience imaginary versions of the laws of physics and the earth's atmosphere) and rejecting known science and all evidence that contradicts their crazy pseuodoscience ideas.



Edited on 15-11-2015 04:33
26-11-2015 00:07
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.

Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns. This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium
Measured by thermometer, barometer etc
Multiple units for temperature pressure etc
No there is not a climate function
Bonus question - Dickhead
26-11-2015 22:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
MK001 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.

Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns. This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium
Measured by thermometer, barometer etc
Multiple units for temperature pressure etc
No there is not a climate function
Bonus question - Dickhead


These are units we use to measure weather, but because there is no quantity for 'a long time', there is no unit for climate nor any definition of climate but vague meaning. This makes it unsuitable for use in the quantitative science world.

What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2015 22:35
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not sure what "climate" is but I have these basic questions about it:

1) Does "Climate" change and how do you know?
1a) Can "Climate" be measured? If so, what equipment can thus measure it? If not, how can you tell if it has changed?

2) What are the units of measure for "climate"?
- 2a) How many of these "climate" units of measure does earth have in total?

3) Is there a "Climate" function? If so, what is it?
- 3a) Is "Climate Change" simply the 1st derivative of the "Climate" function?

-----

Bonus question for Surface Detail: Is "Climate" a wave or a particle?



.

Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns. This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium
Measured by thermometer, barometer etc
Multiple units for temperature pressure etc
No there is not a climate function
Bonus question - Dickhead


These are units we use to measure weather, but because there is no quantity for 'a long time', there is no unit for climate nor any definition of climate but vague meaning. This makes it unsuitable for use in the quantitative science world.

What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?


Dynamic equilibrium means it is always moving the point of equilibrium due to outside forces. so basically if all factors remained the same an equilibrium would be acheived but in the case of a global system that point contiues to move because of whatever force you would care to mention; perhaps the heat generated by IBdamanns massive output of dung.
26-11-2015 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?

Dynamic equilibrium means it is always moving the point of equilibrium due to outside forces. so basically if all factors remained the same an equilibrium would be acheived but in the case of a global system that point contiues to move because of whatever force you would care to mention; perhaps the heat generated by IBdamanns massive output of dung.


But isn't that just trying to describe an equilibrium with insufficient factors? If something moves to change the equilibrium, that something should be part of the factors to determine equilibrium in the first place, shouldn't it?

This sounds a bit like counting grains of sand to determine the length of the coastline.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2015 23:25
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?

Dynamic equilibrium means it is always moving the point of equilibrium due to outside forces. so basically if all factors remained the same an equilibrium would be acheived but in the case of a global system that point contiues to move because of whatever force you would care to mention; perhaps the heat generated by IBdamanns massive output of dung.


But isn't that just trying to describe an equilibrium with insufficient factors? If something moves to change the equilibrium, that something should be part of the factors to determine equilibrium in the first place, shouldn't it?

This sounds a bit like counting grains of sand to determine the length of the coastline.


You can only factor in what is there to be factored. If you consider earths oorbit to be in a state of equilibrium, then if you hit the earth with a very large asteroid it point of equilibrium will shift and it will modify its orbit to try and obtain that steady state. Now before it achieves that steady state it gets hit again (bad day) the point of equilibrium will shift again and soon on. Thats how I view the Global climate the equilibrium point is always being messed up by something whether its a volcanic discharge or man made emissions; it does not matter. All I am saying is that The climate system can never acheive equilibrium because the set point keeps moving.
26-11-2015 23:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
MK001 wrote:
Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns.

So any two people discussing "climate" are probably each separately referring to his/her own personally defined time period, meaning the two are discussing entirely different things while believing they are discussing the same thing. Sounds like religion to me.

You can observe this effect by listening to two Christians who agree with each other on some concept about the "human soul." Later, when you ask them each individually it will turn out that their underlying understandings of "human soul" differ, which throws their agreement out the window, making one wonder to what they believed they were discussing in the first place. The same goes for "climate," "Global Warming," "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," "purgatory," "rapture" and other religious terms.

MK001 wrote: This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

You can't take the average over a time interval until you nail down the time interval. If anyone is free to choose his/her own time interval willy-nilly and that serves as the definition of "climate" then it is as I said, "climate" holds a different personal meaning to each worshiper.

MK001 wrote: Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium

No there is not a climate function

So "climate" could just be an eternal constant, like "God" is in Christianity. You have no way of knowing. You admit that there is no "climate" function, so there is obviously no "climate" function that ever changes. On the one hand you insist, with certainty, that "climate" changes but then you admit to knowing of no "climate" function that indicates "climate" changes.

MK001 wrote: Measured by thermometer, barometer etc

So after all that, it turns out that "climate" is not a completely notional set of trends/averages/statistics that are averaged over some period of time. It turns out that "climate" is a real, physical, tangible thing that can be measured!

So to keep "climate" completely unfalsifiable you declare it to be a tangible, measurable thing when it's convenient to do so, but then when convenience shifts you declare it to be something completely notional like an "average."

A football player can get warmer but his scoring averages cannot.

I don't think you have thought this through very well.


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
26-11-2015 23:41
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Climate, which comes from the Greek klima meaning 'area', usually refers to a region's long-term weather patterns.

So any two people discussing "climate" are probably each separately referring to his/her own personally defined time period, meaning the two are discussing entirely different things while believing they are discussing the same thing. Sounds like religion to me.

You can observe this effect by listening to two Christians who agree with each other on some concept about the "human soul." Later, when you ask them each individually it will turn out that their underlying understandings of "human soul" differ, which throws their agreement out the window, making one wonder to what they believed they were discussing in the first place. The same goes for "climate," "Global Warming," "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," "purgatory," "rapture" and other religious terms.

MK001 wrote: This is measured in terms of average precipitation (i.e. the amount of annual rainfall, snow etc), maximum and minimum temperatures throughout the seasons, sunshine hours, humidity, the frequency of extreme weather, and so on.

You can't take the average over a time interval until you nail down the time interval. If anyone is free to choose his/her own time interval willy-nilly and that serves as the definition of "climate" then it is as I said, "climate" holds a different personal meaning to each worshiper.

MK001 wrote: Yes climate is always changing and always has - Dynamic equilibrium

No there is not a climate function

So "climate" could just be an eternal constant, like "God" is in Christianity. You have no way of knowing. You admit that there is no "climate" function, so there is obviously no "climate" function that ever changes. On the one hand you insist, with certainty, that "climate" changes but then you admit to knowing of no "climate" function that indicates "climate" changes.

MK001 wrote: Measured by thermometer, barometer etc

So after all that, it turns out that "climate" is not a completely notional set of trends/averages/statistics that are averaged over some period of time. It turns out that "climate" is a real, physical, tangible thing that can be measured!

So to keep "climate" completely unfalsifiable you declare it to be a tangible, measurable thing when it's convenient to do so, but then when convenience shifts you declare it to be something completely notional like an "average."

A football player can get warmer but his scoring averages cannot.

I don't think you have thought this through very well.



There is nothing to think through I provided the definition for cliimate earlier and yoou quite rightly said it depends on time selected for the average to be useful so pick a time I don't care it does not matter. It will not remain consistent anyway because it will change and that change could be measured against any time block you pick.

Climate and weather are always unfalsifiable, just listen the long range weather forecast.

What is it with you and religion anyway, you seem to know alot about them!
27-11-2015 00:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What is 'dynamic' equilibrium? You have equilibrium or you do not. Do you not?

Dynamic equilibrium means it is always moving the point of equilibrium due to outside forces. so basically if all factors remained the same an equilibrium would be acheived but in the case of a global system that point contiues to move because of whatever force you would care to mention; perhaps the heat generated by IBdamanns massive output of dung.


But isn't that just trying to describe an equilibrium with insufficient factors? If something moves to change the equilibrium, that something should be part of the factors to determine equilibrium in the first place, shouldn't it?

This sounds a bit like counting grains of sand to determine the length of the coastline.


You can only factor in what is there to be factored. If you consider earths oorbit to be in a state of equilibrium, then if you hit the earth with a very large asteroid it point of equilibrium will shift and it will modify its orbit to try and obtain that steady state. Now before it achieves that steady state it gets hit again (bad day) the point of equilibrium will shift again and soon on. Thats how I view the Global climate the equilibrium point is always being messed up by something whether its a volcanic discharge or man made emissions; it does not matter. All I am saying is that The climate system can never achieve equilibrium because the set point keeps moving.


Earth's orbit is not dependent on whether asteroids hit it. If an asteroid with a mass similar to Earth hit the Earth, both the Earth and the asteroid would be destroyed, eventually collapsing into a new larger Earth. The orbit remains stable, if not necessarily circular. There is no seeking to a new equilibrium. It just is.

The climate has no 'set point'. There is no thermostat to turn up or down that will affect the climate. The only way to affect temperatures on the Earth is to change the output of the sun. If the sun changes, there is no equilibrium to seek. It just is. We will see the effect in less than 24 hours.


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2015 05:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Into the Night wrote: If the sun changes, there is no equilibrium to seek. It just is. We will see the effect in less than 24 hours.

Technically there would be a new equilibrium. It would not take long as you point out, but the earth would require a certain non-zero amount of time to rise (or lower) in temperature.

Remember, equilibrium means "input equals output". The equilibrium is that amount of input or output.

The moment solar output changes, input no longer equals output.

This is where Planck's law comes in. The output (earth's thermal radiation) is dependent on earth's temperature. As the earth's temperature adjusts to the new input, earth's thermal radiation also adjusts accordingly.

And guess what...the new temperature of the earth will coincidentally stop adjusting exactly at the point the adjusting earth's thermal radiation equals the new solar input.

However, that new input/output amount is the new equilibrium. The brief time required for earth to reach its new temperature is the time required for it to reach its new equilibrium.


.


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
27-11-2015 10:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: If the sun changes, there is no equilibrium to seek. It just is. We will see the effect in less than 24 hours.

Technically there would be a new equilibrium. It would not take long as you point out, but the earth would require a certain non-zero amount of time to rise (or lower) in temperature.

Remember, equilibrium means "input equals output". The equilibrium is that amount of input or output.

The moment solar output changes, input no longer equals output.

This is where Planck's law comes in. The output (earth's thermal radiation) is dependent on earth's temperature. As the earth's temperature adjusts to the new input, earth's thermal radiation also adjusts accordingly.

And guess what...the new temperature of the earth will coincidentally stop adjusting exactly at the point the adjusting earth's thermal radiation equals the new solar input.

However, that new input/output amount is the new equilibrium. The brief time required for earth to reach its new temperature is the time required for it to reach its new equilibrium.


.

Quite right. The acquisition of a new equilibrium does require time. The time envisioned by MK, however, is much longer than 24 hours. He is thinking years or at least months. This is the concept typically pursued by those claiming there are 'set points' in the climate.


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2015 15:06
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: If the sun changes, there is no equilibrium to seek. It just is. We will see the effect in less than 24 hours.

Technically there would be a new equilibrium. It would not take long as you point out, but the earth would require a certain non-zero amount of time to rise (or lower) in temperature.

Remember, equilibrium means "input equals output". The equilibrium is that amount of input or output.

The moment solar output changes, input no longer equals output.

This is where Planck's law comes in. The output (earth's thermal radiation) is dependent on earth's temperature. As the earth's temperature adjusts to the new input, earth's thermal radiation also adjusts accordingly.

And guess what...the new temperature of the earth will coincidentally stop adjusting exactly at the point the adjusting earth's thermal radiation equals the new solar input.

However, that new input/output amount is the new equilibrium. The brief time required for earth to reach its new temperature is the time required for it to reach its new equilibrium.


.

Quite right. The acquisition of a new equilibrium does require time. The time envisioned by MK, however, is much longer than 24 hours. He is thinking years or at least months. This is the concept typically pursued by those claiming there are 'set points' in the climate.[/quote

Wouldn't the different coefficients of heating of different substances have to be factored in? I mean if you produce a new set temperature point there would have to be a time lag for the uniform temperature to be acheived. I could see this explanation working in a system where the planet was made of one material perhaps like a pool ball with a uniform atmosphere. There would seem to be to many variables like differing albedos (ice vs Ocean) etc and heating and cooling rates for the set point to actually be reached. This is why I see the set point as being constantly changing.
27-11-2015 18:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
MK001 wrote: Wouldn't the different coefficients of heating of different substances have to be factored in?

No.

Just observe any day transition to night and back to day. All the information needed by any scientist would be contained in that observation. You will notice a broad temperature swing within that time period. You could observe any individual rock on the ground and notice that it effectively changes in temperature according to the time of day from warm to cooler back to warm again. A change in solar output will take no more than 24 hours to manifest.

If the sun were to suddenly turn off all juice, we can get a rough idea from the moon that freezing temperatures would be almost immediate. In such discussions wherby we discuss changes in solar input, we are speaking of changes that are far, far less than the sun turning off completely or doubling in output.

24 hours is all we need to account for any solar changes.

MK001 wrote: like differing albedos (ice vs Ocean) etc .

We have a thread on albedo:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/understanding-albedo-d6-e781.php
The bottom line is that you have to treat albedo as a constant. The surface of the earth changes far too slowly for anything but negligible, non-measurable and non-noticeable changes within time periods of thousands of years.

Solar input changes are fully resolved within hours.


.


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 Is There Climate Change?:

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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact