Jump to content

Mathematically Confirmed: There Is No Climate Change Crisis


Recommended Posts

Here's something unlikely to make the cover of Time. From the Science & Public Policy Institute:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/pr...ate_crisis.html

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis" appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

Does math lie? It is provable, and if these calculations are false, where is the rebuttal to their veracity? Start looking, I'll see you back here with the answer in ...........never. Opinion I agree, is just an opinion, Math is indisputable, unless of course it does not conform to this MMGW line of bs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

If this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it should be accepted for what it is: one study that will be reexamined, scrutinized, and repeated ad nausem. If it continues to pass the mustard, it will be fully accepted as legitimate information for scientific discussion. It's sort of how science works.

If anything though, I hope this helps dismiss the notion that all scientists worldwide are engaged in some cabal of misinformation as some posters on here have suggested (not Silentbob).

When legitimate information is presented, it is entered into the discussion. However, one report does not make a fact, something our media fails to recognize far too often. Ideas that are generally accepted as "scientific fact" almost always face years or even decades of scrutiny before being accepted as the norm. One of the reason so many Nobel prize winners don't win until late in life...it takes decades to convince a typically cynical scientific community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fanboy3000 (7/16/2008)
greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

If this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it should be accepted for what it is: one study that will be reexamined, scrutinized, and repeated ad nausem. If it continues to pass the mustard, it will be fully accepted as legitimate information for scientific discussion. It's sort of how science works.

If anything though, I hope this helps dismiss the notion that all scientists worldwide are engaged in some cabal of misinformation as some posters on here have suggested (not Silentbob).

When legitimate information is presented, it is entered into the discussion. However, one report does not make a fact, something our media fails to recognize far too often. Ideas that are generally accepted as "scientific fact" almost always face years or even decades of scrutiny before being accepted as the norm. One of the reason so many Nobel prize winners don't win until late in life...it takes decades to convince a typically cynical scientific community.

I just don't get how someone who is as logical of thought and fair of opinion as yourself has such a freaky azz avatar......good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fanboy3000 (7/16/2008)
greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

If this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it should be accepted for what it is: one study that will be reexamined, scrutinized, and repeated ad nausem. If it continues to pass the mustard, it will be fully accepted as legitimate information for scientific discussion. It's sort of how science works.

If anything though, I hope this helps dismiss the notion that all scientists worldwide are engaged in some cabal of misinformation as some posters on here have suggested (not Silentbob).

When legitimate information is presented, it is entered into the discussion. However, one report does not make a fact, something our media fails to recognize far too often. Ideas that are generally accepted as "scientific fact" almost always face years or even decades of scrutiny before being accepted as the norm. One of the reason so many Nobel prize winners don't win until late in life...it takes decades to convince a typically cynical scientific community.

So were the studies done at these sites (with MATH)

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

And these  groups don't seem to have a finanical stake in pleasing Exxon/Mobil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/16/2008)
Fanboy3000 (7/16/2008)
greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

If this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it should be accepted for what it is: one study that will be reexamined, scrutinized, and repeated ad nausem. If it continues to pass the mustard, it will be fully accepted as legitimate information for scientific discussion. It's sort of how science works.

If anything though, I hope this helps dismiss the notion that all scientists worldwide are engaged in some cabal of misinformation as some posters on here have suggested (not Silentbob).

When legitimate information is presented, it is entered into the discussion. However, one report does not make a fact, something our media fails to recognize far too often. Ideas that are generally accepted as "scientific fact" almost always face years or even decades of scrutiny before being accepted as the norm. One of the reason so many Nobel prize winners don't win until late in life...it takes decades to convince a typically cynical scientific community.

I just don't get how someone who is as logical of thought and fair of opinion as yourself has such a freaky azz avatar......good post.

he watches Metalocolypse on Adult Swim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

why do we even bother? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/16/2008)
Fanboy3000 (7/16/2008)
greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

If this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it should be accepted for what it is: one study that will be reexamined, scrutinized, and repeated ad nausem. If it continues to pass the mustard, it will be fully accepted as legitimate information for scientific discussion. It's sort of how science works.

If anything though, I hope this helps dismiss the notion that all scientists worldwide are engaged in some cabal of misinformation as some posters on here have suggested (not Silentbob).

When legitimate information is presented, it is entered into the discussion. However, one report does not make a fact, something our media fails to recognize far too often. Ideas that are generally accepted as "scientific fact" almost always face years or even decades of scrutiny before being accepted as the norm. One of the reason so many Nobel prize winners don't win until late in life...it takes decades to convince a typically cynical scientific community.

I just don't get how someone who is as logical of thought and fair of opinion as yourself has such a freaky azz avatar......good post.

Dr. Rockso freaky? Never. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greyhawk (7/16/2008)
Fanboy3000 (7/16/2008)
greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

If this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it should be accepted for what it is: one study that will be reexamined, scrutinized, and repeated ad nausem. If it continues to pass the mustard, it will be fully accepted as legitimate information for scientific discussion. It's sort of how science works.

If anything though, I hope this helps dismiss the notion that all scientists worldwide are engaged in some cabal of misinformation as some posters on here have suggested (not Silentbob).

When legitimate information is presented, it is entered into the discussion. However, one report does not make a fact, something our media fails to recognize far too often. Ideas that are generally accepted as "scientific fact" almost always face years or even decades of scrutiny before being accepted as the norm. One of the reason so many Nobel prize winners don't win until late in life...it takes decades to convince a typically cynical scientific community.

So were the studies done at these sites (with MATH)

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

And these groups don't seem to have a finanical stake in pleasing Exxon/Mobil

Exactly. All will be taken into consideration.

Also, the site where the story comes from may be biased, but I don't think that the APS is. I could be wrong, though it'd be a first. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fanboy3000 (7/16/2008)
greyhawk (7/16/2008)
Fanboy3000 (7/16/2008)
greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

If this was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it should be accepted for what it is: one study that will be reexamined, scrutinized, and repeated ad nausem. If it continues to pass the mustard, it will be fully accepted as legitimate information for scientific discussion. It's sort of how science works.

If anything though, I hope this helps dismiss the notion that all scientists worldwide are engaged in some cabal of misinformation as some posters on here have suggested (not Silentbob).

When legitimate information is presented, it is entered into the discussion. However, one report does not make a fact, something our media fails to recognize far too often. Ideas that are generally accepted as "scientific fact" almost always face years or even decades of scrutiny before being accepted as the norm. One of the reason so many Nobel prize winners don't win until late in life...it takes decades to convince a typically cynical scientific community.

So were the studies done at these sites (with MATH)

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

And these groups don't seem to have a finanical stake in pleasing Exxon/Mobil

Exactly. All will be taken into consideration.

Also, the site where the story comes from may be biased, but I don't think that the APS is. I could be wrong, though it'd be a first. ;)

The site or source be damned, mathematical equations are incapable of bias (unless of course they are altered to start and perpetuate a faulty theory such as with the UN's original model) opinion does not enter into this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way you need to vet the source of the "Math"

Seems he has a degree in .....journalism.

Now let's take a look at what real Climatologists think of Mr Mockton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_M...on_of_Brenchley

Gavin Schmidt has criticised Monckton's analysis of climate sensitivity as "sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary" [1]. Dr. Stephan Harrison criticises Moncktons' articles as "full of errors, misuse of data and cherry-picked examples" [2]. The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments as "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[
Link to comment
Share on other sites

greyhawk (7/16/2008)
By the way you need to vet the source of the "Math"

Seems he has a degree in .....journalism.

Now let's take a look at what real Climatologists think of Mr Mockton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_M...on_of_Brenchley

Gavin Schmidt has criticised Monckton's analysis of climate sensitivity as "sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary" [1]. Dr. Stephan Harrison criticises Moncktons' articles as "full of errors, misuse of data and cherry-picked examples" [2]. The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments as "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[

Again, it was published in a peer reviewed journal, making it at least valid for the moment, and will continue to be scrutinized. It isn't fact by any means, and others will recheck and test the math continually looking for errors. There will be criticism. All it is is one paper added to the pile.

But, the APS is not a biased group so far as I can tell. Here's a statement from their site:

National Policy

07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

aps.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actaully it wasn't "peer reviewed", quoting from the editor's notes

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher  Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community.

And from the same journal

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2...hafemeister.cfm

Conclusion: Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.

David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz

Physics Department

Cal Poly University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snake (7/16/2008)
Mr. Offseason (7/16/2008)
greyhawk (7/16/2008)
You're making this wayyyyyy to easy

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year." [1]

Now why should we believe anything that an Exxon paid group says?

why do we even bother? lol

You bother because the truth is very important and greenpeace is a hack organization, with their intent being to socialize the country. This information has been posted before and the IPCC models cannot predict future weather on this planet with any degree of certainty, just like no one else can, The earth has warmed less then 1 degree following a mini ice age that lasted 400 years. Whats it supposed to do?????? Warm. Yep, thats what ends ice ages, Warmth. MMGW does not exist more then the land island heating effect. GHG are a polutant and harm the air we breath and our waters, somewhat, and thats what this whole argument should be abt.

That is exactly what this whole thing should be about, but that would not be as profitable to the people perpetuating this farce.

AlGore's net worth for instance has gone from just over 1 million in 2000 to 100 million today. A nice 10,000 % upswing just for starting a worldwide con job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snake (7/16/2008)
Grey, you have quit afew bent left wingers who have wholesale bought into the MMGW hoax as it allows for the demise of America's way of doing things. Sure many will NOT like that the Hoax is being disclosed, cause it may just end up costing them their jobs. Many of the original MMGW side have switched, as new information comes out.

And here is the crux of the matter. To you it is NOT about the potential of global warming but about the "demise of America's way of doing things"  Guess what, it's real. The math is there to back it up. Please note Bob quoted a journalist and I quoted from physicists. Of the two I'll take the guys with all the letters behind their names because they are usually right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (7/16/2008)

That is exactly what this whole thing should be about, but that would not be as profitable to the people perpetuating this farce.

AlGore's net worth for instance has gone from just over 1 million in 2000 to 100 million today. A nice 10,000 % upswing just for starting a worldwide con job.

In other words you have a problem with Al Gore's becoming rich by investing in green companies. And I thought that was what America was all about. FYI Al was rich before this. By the way do you have a problem with DickCheney's worth increasing to close to $100 million while in office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greyhawk (7/16/2008)
snake (7/16/2008)
Grey, you have quit afew bent left wingers who have wholesale bought into the MMGW hoax as it allows for the demise of America's way of doing things. Sure many will NOT like that the Hoax is being disclosed, cause it may just end up costing them their jobs. Many of the original MMGW side have switched, as new information comes out.

And here is the crux of the matter. To you it is NOT about the potential of global warming but about the "demise of America's way of doing things" Guess what, it's real. The math is there to back it up. Please note Bob quoted a journalist and I quoted from physicists. Of the two I'll take the guys with all the letters behind their names because they are usually right.

Uhh, I did not just quote a journalist....to review

This was written by Christopher Monckton, If you want to see his credentials, it would take you all night to read them all, but I would be happy to supply them or you could Google him.

This is merely his conclusion, his full thesis in included in the link

<a%20href="http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm"%20target="_blank">http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm</a>" target="_blank">

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Conclusion

"Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, just in case , can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no climate crisis at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greyhawk (7/16/2008)
silentbob1272 (7/16/2008)

That is exactly what this whole thing should be about, but that would not be as profitable to the people perpetuating this farce.

AlGore's net worth for instance has gone from just over 1 million in 2000 to 100 million today. A nice 10,000 % upswing just for starting a worldwide con job.

In other words you have a problem with Al Gore's becoming rich by investing in green companies. And I thought that was what America was all about. FYI Al was rich before this. By the way do you have a problem with DickCheney's worth increasing to close to $100 million while in office?

I have no problem at all with AlGore becoming rich, I do have a problem with the blatant conflict of interest and pseudo insider trader that he has been guilty of though.

As you said he invests in "Green Companies" he then runs around the world stirring up and propping up the very lie and exaggeration that will lead to the skyrocketing profit margin of their and more importantly his bottom line investments. It is disgraceful, as is he himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen sent me a very good reply to this acticle

"Notice first that this is a low-tiered subfield journal. As the journal title suggests -- Physics AND SOCIETY -- it is a place for discussing current topics regarding physics and therefore overlaps with politics and other aspects of society. In other words, this is NOT a top field journal that publishes original research with new data analysis. That doesn't make it incorrect, but you need to understand that this one single article published in this particular journal is not some home-run debunking of the thousands of articles published in higher-tiered journals that present original data and analysis. You need some proportion here, especially when using the phrase "MATHEMATICALLY CONFIRMED".

On the other hand, this is a very technical piece and shows a considerable amount of research skill by the author. The person is still a layman because he does not have any training in climatology or physics (he has a journal degree and nothing more), but he is obviously knowledgeable about the subject matter. It appears to be a serious piece that deserves consideration and I would be interested to see what climatologists and physicists have to say about it. I suspect, given Monckton's obvious political biases and active work on behalf of conservative causes, that there are technical errors in the paper that render his conclusions invalid. But again, he has made a serious enough contribution to warrant a rejoinder from the scientific community.

So in conclusion, you are horribly overstating your case by falsely pretending that this is some kind of smoking gun proof that MMGW is fake. It's a technical paper in a peer-reviewed journal, but the "peers" who are reviewing for this journal are not the top climate change experts in the field and the nature of the journal should cause you to reconsider the "MATHEMATICALLY CONFIRMED" language/propaganda that you're using on the boards.

FWIW. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed reading this, mainly because the typical neocons pulled the "But... its MATH... its irrefutable you see... math just proved that global warming is false... and math has to be true... because its math... mathematical math..."

First, I'm just going to throw out the blanket statement here. CORRECT math is never wrong, however just because someone uses math to argue something doesnt make them automatically correct. Especially when it comes to this where the math used is most likely arguable. Does that mean he used incorrect math? I don't know. I've already stated I don't have a horse in the global warming debate. But I certainly am not going to bow down to someone who has a stake because he came up with a mathematical answer.

Also the important thing that people seem to be missing is that this really doesn't mathematically prove anything, he is saying that the current mathematics behind global warming are inaccurate. That doesn't mean anything about the validity of global warming itself, it means that there could possibly be an error in the software one agency uses to predict future climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...