Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here' thread

[Edited January 2 2019 -- to remove or replace dead visual-links]

Long ago Jonathan and I got some good traction out of a tangle of issues related to Global Warming slash Climate Change.  I think we are slated to renew or refresh our earlier exchanges.  I am going to poke in links to some he-said/he-saids from a few different threads at different times. One feature of the updated software is an automated 'sampling' of a link posted raw.  See below. 

So this blog entry will be kind of administrative-technical while being built and edited. I haven't figured out if Jonathan and I should impose some 'rules' going in, so your comment may be subject to arbitrary deletion before the field is ready for play. Fan notes included.

Study-links-Greenland-melting-with-Arctic-amplification.jpg

globalWarmingPEWpolarization.png

Adam, see what you think of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, especially the revealing map-based representations of opinion. You can drill and zoom down to state, county, district level to track data across a number of survey questions, where some of the answers are surprising. On some measures at least, the thing it is not found only in the UK, Quebec, Canada: Here's a snapshot of several maps which do not always show an expected Red State/Blue State pattern;

[images updated January 2 2019; click and go images]

2018YaleClimateOpinionMaps.png

personalHarmYaleCC.png

[Deleted image-link]

Edited  by william.scherk

 

Plug my How To Get Where I Got book of books, Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. Insert link to Amazon, Library link, and to the intro chapter of Weart's companion website to the book. Make sure you include a link to Ellen's mention of a book review. 

Bob Kolker's June 3 comment is a good hinge. What do we (J and I) think we know about the mechanism Bob sketches? What can we 'stipulate' or what can we agree on, for the sake of argument?

On 6/3/2016 at 9:31 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

CO2 does  slow down the radiation of energy in the infra-red bandwith.  The question is to what degree  given that there are other systems that tend to diffuse and disperse heat (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino, along with convection and the Coriolis Effect that moves warm are to the polar regions).  The scientific fact is that CO2 tends to absorb radiated energy in the infra red range.  That is NOT fabricated.  That is a matter of experimental fact. 

Please see http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

The issue is to what extent is the CO2 load of the atmosphere is slowing down heat radiation into space, when such absorbing or radiation occurs along with other heat dispersing processes.   

No denies that putting a blanket on, when it is cold slows down the rate at which one's body radiates heat.  Air is a poor heat conductor and the blanket traps air.  Also the blanket is warmed and radiates half its heat back to the source.  This produces a net slowing down of heat loss.  Heat loss still occurs (Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation)  but the rate of loss is affected. 

Tyndol and Arhenius  established the heat absorbing properties of CO2  in the late 19 th and early 20 th century.  Subsequent work has show the absorbtion to be the case and has measured it even more accurately than Tyndol and Arhenius. 

 

 

arctic1.jpg



638 Comments


Recommended Comments



6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made

I can't say precisely when all of these hypothesis were made, but these are the staple hypothesis of AGW:

(https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate)

1. First and foremost - burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric concentrations of co2. Seems like a no-brainer but I've crossed paths with individuals who dispute that the current rise in atm co2 is not due to human burning of fossil fuels.

2. As a consequence of #1, Increasing non-condensing greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the system to warm

3. As a consequence of #1, pH of the ocean will shift to a more acidic pH as they absorb more co2

4. Along with #2, increasing ghg will simultaneously cause the stratosphere and on up to cool

5. As a consequence of #2, there will be some positive feedbacks triggered, ie reduced albedo due to loss of sea ice, increased water vapor in the atm

6. As a consequence of #2, there will be sea level rise (SLR). There are 2 reasons for this. 1 - warmer water takes up more volume and 2 - melting glaciers

To me, those are the key hypothses of AGW, each of which has now been observed. See below for simple responses to each point, starting with #2. If I need to cover my bases on #1, let me know:

2. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

3. http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112157

4. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp (contains links to supporting papers)

5. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06207

6. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022

For those wanting to read papers that might be behind a paywall, there is a chrome (maybe firefox as well) extension called unpaywallme. It will give you a lock icon that changes to color when you reach a paywalled paper that has a free version available. It's not 100%, but it will get you most papers for free.

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

How integral or statistically significant is the albedo value to the overall maths or modeling?

The first link you provided describes cloud formation predictions as a ‘wildcard’, what was the albedo value in the 2500 yr span that you have compared to the post industrial span and consequent temperature ‘spike(s)’ and if indeterminate, does any of that affect your confidence in predictions?

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This is my blog, Friends and Foes.

No, it isn’t. It is Michael’s. Not surprised at your leftist instinct on the matter. You think it belongs to you and this animates your squatting his Twitter account. You have the soul of (child) rapist.

If it belonged to you then you would be able to do something about me coming here to call you a pedophile, without having to worry if it would open the door to more banning, such as your own, pedophile.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Call it something accurate. He cannot enforce the rules he cited because nothing here belongs to him. The pedophile is an increasingly unwelcome guest here.

And he squats Michael’s Twitter account because he is an ungrateful, thieving, abusive guest.

He could prove me wrong today by relinquishing it to Michael.

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, tmj said:

How integral or statistically significant is the albedo value to the overall maths or modeling? 

Any changes in the system are driven by changes. This seems obvious but there is an often overlooked implication of that statement. Even though an aspect of the system might have a large factor in the energy balance (albedo) it isn't relevant to changes unless it is changing as well. Albedo is made up of 3 main components scattering by the land and surface, clouds, and reflection from ice and snow.

Of these 3 factors, the first and last are changing the most. Land use changes (clearing of forests) creates an increase in albedo while melting of snow and sea ice creates a decrease in albedo. Clouds overall aren't changing from much to none. I've seen some reports putting them at a slight decline, but currently can't find that. So as to whether or not they are impactful to albedo, I'd have to say no.

What is referred to as the wild card, or uncertainty with clouds is what kind of feedback clouds will be. Everyone recognizes without issue that clouds reflect sunlight, but they also trap heat. How a cloud impacts the system not only depends on the cloud type that forms but also the timing of them. Obviously nighttime clouds are rather lousy at reflecting incoming light but do a wonderful job of trapping heat. Overall, the feedback effect of clouds is currently considered 'likely positive' (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3402).

bvFg90H.png

Clouds are what will bring the system back into equilibrium eventually. As I see it, the simplistic explanation is:

Warming causes a decrease in relative humidity -> causes a decrease in cloud production -> less cloud production means a gradual buildup of specific humidity -> this eventually restores the hydrologic (cloud) cycle

The hydrologic cycle can't really be fully restored though until the system has stopped warming. Current observations are specific humidity is increasing but relative is still in decline.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity

specific_relativehumidity1970-2013_610.g

 

Good general link about clouds

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/cloud-cover

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
16 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I can't say precisely when all of these hypothesis were made...

Please let us know when you can say, and when you can address all of the questions that I asked.

One of the requirements that I've insisted on repeatedly here is that all information be disclosed, and that would include all of the relevant dates.

And keep in mind that it would also include any modifications which were made mid-experiment to, say, instruments, methods of collecting and handling data, etc. -- you know, the type of things that actual real true scientists, as opposed to activists, would be eager to know about and to consider critically, and which, in many cases, should properly be considered the marking of the end of the experiment and beginning of a new one.

One thing that I've found both amusing and disturbing during my decades of observing the climate scares is how often I've seen predictions not working out, and then, all of a sudden, mid-experiment, voilà, hey, we just realized that we need to apply a new method and equipment, and, whaddayaknow, look what happens when we apply it: our predictions just happen to work out perfectly now! And a month from now, there will no longer be any reference to our predictions not having worked out prior to our adopting the new method and equipment, and, in fact, there will be no reference to the changes in method and equipment, or at least not any that are easy to find. Erased. Forgotten. The graphs will be redrawn to represent the new, refined and enhanced predictions and results. Yay!

Let's dispense with that kind of bullshit, please. Bring everything out into the sunlight.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
12 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Overall, the feedback effect of clouds is currently considered 'likely positive'...

Clouds are one of the phenomena on which modern science does not yet have a handle. It's an issue which even the IPCC rates as scientifically uncertain and weak.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Please let us know when you can say, and when you can address all of the questions that I asked.

I'll do my best.

In regards to who and when, Joseph Fourier first hypothesized about the greenhouse effect. He noted that the atmosphere must in some way be absorbing, or inhibiiting, invisible light (IR) from leaving the planet (approx 1820's): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier

Arrhennius in 1896 would be the first to hypothesize that changing co2, including by burning fossil fuels, could enhance the GHE. He also estimated that doubling co2 might lead to approx 5C change in temps! This is seeming a bit high with current research, but I find how close his number is to out estimates to be truly remarkable. https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm

In regards to your comments about changes in the experiment (changes in equipment and observational biases), Zeke has a great writeup here in regards to they why, where, when, who of adjustments. The end result: adjustments don't impact the overall global trend in any significant way.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records

I can't say for certain that all algorithms are publicly available for download, but some are for sure. For example, here is NOAA PHA algorithm.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/pairwise-homogeneity-adjustment-software

Whether the algorithm is publicly available or not, I can say with a greater degree of certainty the they provide literature explaining their methodlogy:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf

Raw and adjusted data are also available through NOAA and other collection agencies. Some people have gone so far as to create their own individual algorithms from scratch:

 

@caerbannog666 has tons of plots on his page and his algorithm is available for anyone to download, go through, and compile on their own. Or if using other's work isn't your thing, come up with your own methodology.  As another example of individual analysis, @BubbasRanch has done his own work, and is most definitely on the skeptic side of the debate. However, his results, albeit he doesn't communicate it well in my opinion, agree rather well with NASA results. He also never explicitly compares his results in a side-by-side fashion as @caerbanogg666 does, but I would still personally vouch for his work, just not the implications of what he says it means 😉

 

That's all I have time for at the moment. Let me know if you have questions about any of this content, or where which questions I can focus my next responses on. 1-2 direct questions at a time is much easier to field and respond to than 5-6 huge open ended questions.

Thanks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Clouds are one of the phenomena on which modern science does not yet have a handle. It's an issue which even the IPCC rates as scientifically uncertain and weak.

Yes, I agree there is uncertainty. The most recent work is looking like the total feedback is positive. That's why I specifically quoted their work (saying 'likely positive') as well as provided a link to their paper (albeit paywalled) and provided the key diagram that supports their assertion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

If [Friends and Foes] belonged to you then you would be able to do something about me coming here to call you a pedophile, without having to worry if it would open the door to more banning, such as your own, pedophile.

That doesn't make sense to me, Jon.  I set up the blog, it is under my control, no one else is able to post topics in it, and I have the option to delete anything I choose.  I have made it clear in an earlier post that while I was tempted to moderate this topic thread -- I decided not to. About the only I can see myself deleting is graphic obscenity/pornography. 

Your abusive smears are what they are.  You are free to post abuse and histrionics here, on topic or not.

Share this comment


Link to comment
22 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I'll do my best.

Great. I'm looking forward to it.

Please remember the entire context of what I'm asking.

 

Quote

In regards to your comments about changes in the experiment (changes in equipment and observational biases), Zeke has a great writeup here in regards to they why, where, when, who of adjustments. The end result: adjustments don't impact the overall global trend in any significant way.

What Zeke is doing is excusing more than explaining. And, bullshit, adjustments have been significant toward arriving at the predetermined outcome.

They're bullied into place. I've watched it happen over and over again. A perfect current example is the erasing of the pause/hiatus, which you've jumped onboard. You've joined very early. Most others have not. "Consensus" scientists have serious problems with the adjustment/modification games that have been proposed by the pause/hiatus erasure activists.

What'll happen is that they'll be worked on, ignored and isolated, some may even be ridiculed, the erasure Narrative will continue to be pushed, and, in a relatively short time, it'll gain momentum. Objections will be silenced, dissenters will weigh their integrity against their dependence and their position in the structure and will learn to keep their mouths shut, and we'll be hearing you citing Zeke explaining that it's become completely uncontroversial settled science with 97% consensus agreement that a pause/hiatus never happened, that no one ever believed it, that the adjustments really didn't have much of an effect or change anything at all, and that only conspiracy kooks and denier betrayer whores would disagree.

J

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

I’d best be described as a silent reader and sometimes snark poster. 

I’d also say I’m probably best described as ambivalent toward the ‘science’ of AGW but respectful of the scientific method as it applies or is expressed in the field of climatology , et al.

I’d like to reach a point of confidence in my understanding of the mechanics of carbon dispersal and its effects on ‘the climate’ to be able to identify reasonable estimates of the function different levels of ‘it’ contribute to the very dynamic ‘system’.

But at the same time I don’t view the use of fossil fuels as anything ‘outside’ ‘nature’. Human civilization and its ‘byproducts’ should in my estimation be seen as natural as photosynthesis and volcanic eruptions. Scientists can identify and catalogue all manner of processes and by doing so benefit mankind by virtue of adding to its shared knowledge base .

But at the end of the day, in 2019, I’m more interested in what others are willing to do about it, and I’m on a team that defines a ‘large carbon footprint’ as winning.

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

What Zeke is doing is excusing more than explaining. And, bullshit, adjustments have been significant toward arriving at the predetermined outcome.

Actually they don't. When one looks at the adjustments, they are equally weighted up and down. Some one could then say that their is a temporal shift in the adjustements, ie early ones shifting down, late shifting up, as a means to exaggerate the trend. The issue there is this is completely opposite of what is seen. The net sum of all adjustments reduces the total trend:

2000.jpg?w=620%26q=85%26auto=format%26sh

https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3280

As for the rest of everything you have to say, it's all conspiracy. Not going to waste my time disproving your teapot in orbit that you can't validate by your own will.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
11 minutes ago, tmj said:

But at the same time I don’t view the use of fossil fuels as anything ‘outside’ ‘nature’. Human civilization and its ‘byproducts’ should in my estimation be seen as natural as photosynthesis and volcanic eruptions. Scientists can identify and catalogue all manner of processes and by doing so benefit mankind by virtue of adding to its shared knowledge base .

I find this to be a slippery slope. Hiroshima was a product of humans. Just because we evolved in nature and utilize parts of isn't a safe implication that what we are doing isn't destructive. Human history is quite frequently filled with humans acting as if there were no repercussions for their actions when in hindsight we realize how ignorantly we acting.

I absolutely agree that adding to the shared knowledge base is key to human growth. Seems a bit pointless to do so, however, when given access to the information individuals simply disregard the warnings in favour of their own whims.

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
59 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I find this to be a slippery slope. Hiroshima was a product of humans. Just because we evolved in nature and utilize parts of isn't a safe implication that what we are doing isn't destructive. Human history is quite frequently filled with humans acting as if there were no repercussions for their actions when in hindsight we realize how ignorantly we acting.

I absolutely agree that adding to the shared knowledge base is key to human growth. Seems a bit pointless to do so, however, when given access to the information individuals simply disregard the warnings in favour of their own whims.

Are you ready to advocate legislation? If so, what?

I'm assuming your interest is more than atomistic intellectual. 

--Brant

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Actually they don't. When one looks at the adjustments, they are equally weighted up and down. Some one could then say that their is a temporal shift in the adjustements, ie early ones shifting down, late shifting up, as a means to exaggerate the trend. The issue there is this is completely opposite of what is seen. The net sum of all adjustments reduces the total trend:

2000.jpg?w=620%26q=85%26auto=format%26sh

https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3280

 

Are you suggesting that the adjustments referred to above are the only adjustments or modifications that have ever been made by any and all scientists and scientific organizations in regard to the issue of climate change???

 

3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

 

As for the rest of everything you have to say, it's all conspiracy. Not going to waste my time disproving your teapot in orbit that you can't validate by your own will.

 

No, its observation, and also a prediction, which could turn out to be wrong, but I doubt that it will. And I haven't suggested a conspiracy. One's not needed to explain the behavior of alarmist zealots. They don't need to organize, and I don't believe that they do, at least not often. It's probably pretty rare. No, they're motivated and rewarded more than sufficiently without any conspiracy behind it.

i've seen the treatment of dissenters. It's exactly as I described.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

The implcit working premise that CC science is neither corrupt nor corruptible does not pave the way for a rational discussion about CC. And to call it CC instead of AGW is chocolate frosting on a lemon cake.

--Brant

  • Confused 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Brad is far too slick at the snake oil salesmanship to be innocently duped.  He's put effort into becoming good at the tricks.  Why?

Ellen

He's practicing and acquiring credentials for the sake of money and power. That's my speculation.😀

But the CC political horse is dead in this country. Since he spells favor favour he seems to be abroad.

I don't really care. If Jonathan weren't engaging him he'd evaporate here. Data dumping isn't reasoning. It's bullying. This isn't a scientific forum. OL isn't about data wars in spite of William's efforts.

--Brant

Share this comment


Link to comment
7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Brad is far too slick at the snake oil salesmanship to be innocently duped.  He's put effort into becoming good at the tricks.  Why?

Ellen

He slithers, but is he really all that slick? No. He's been caught being a zealot many times on this thread already, but hasn't learned anything yet. He still leaps before he looks. Rookie stuff. He hears a few familiar words in others' questions or arguments which remind him of a stock, prepackaged refutation that he has ready to use, and he jumps to use it prior to considering if it's actually appropriate and applicable. He's not really paying attention to what's being said, but is kind of selectively hearing and forcing others' arguments into the shape of a straw man which he has practiced knocking down.

But you're right that he has put a lot of effort into it. He's focused on pivots, spins, twists and all of the other snakey maneuvers.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm looking forward to seeing how Brad will slither in regard to certain subjects. I have my own little predictions of how I think he'll mutilate the concepts of, say, repeatability/reproducabilty or falsifiability. What twists will he put on those terms, what will he leave out and hope that we don't notice? He's already given us some pretty good looks at his style and preferences of dishonest tactics, and I think he'll follow the same. He's not very agile or adaptive. The snake won't change his stripes is my prediction.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Brad is far too slick at the snake oil salesmanship to be innocently duped.  He's put effort into becoming good at the tricks.  Why?

Ellen

And Billy loves the brand of snake oil that his Meatpuppet is hawking. Trophies for Brad! Yay!

Thanks for signaling to us that you love your Meatpuppet, Billy. We wouldn't have picked up on it without the trophies.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 3/16/2019 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan said:

Are you suggesting that the adjustments referred to above are the only adjustments or modifications that have ever been made by any and all scientists and scientific organizations in regard to the issue of climate change???

No. NOAA is perhaps the largest collection of temperature data. But the problem you are always going to arrive at, Jonathan, when you try to highlight one record over another is consilience:temperature-measure-composite-nasa-gis-b

http://climatestate.com/2013/06/18/research-closes-gap-between-warming-and-co2-rise/

It becomes problematic for your logic because these records are:

1. Independently collected

2. Independently maintained

3. Have independent methodologies (all published except for UAH) to adjustments

A few years back, the Koch brother started a project at Berkeley, headed by physicist Richard Muller. The objective was to come up with a completely independent, unique methodology for examining the temperature data. There was much talk among this group that the algorithms that other agencies used were inappropriate. After developing their own methods, collecting data (I believe they use NOAA raw data as well as some other agencies), they published their results. The results, more consilience:

Land-only-temps.png&f=1

See, all this high level of agreement by multiple independent agencies becomes a problem for you because all it leaves you with are really two options:

a) claim conspiracy and gloat

b) develop your own methodology and see what you find

Option B is wonderful! Word of caution when taking this route, be sure you have a proper understanding of weighting. You can't simply gather all the data and average it together. There's a disproportionate representation of the number of stations and where they are located, as well as how often and when readings are taken. Care must be exercised to properly weight the data spatially and temporally (in space and time).

By the way, this word consilience comes back to bite when you step back and consider the breadth of scientific subjects and disciplines that have covered and support AGW. It's many fields of science that have looked at this topic from their relative perspective and that is why there is this idea of consensus. But I digress, I just said the ugly c-word. Sorry.

 

On 3/16/2019 at 8:21 PM, Brant Gaede said:

The implcit working premise that CC science is neither corrupt nor corruptible does not pave the way for a rational discussion about CC. And to call it CC instead of AGW is chocolate frosting on a lemon cake.

Brant, at what point did I sat it wasn't corruptible? However, that something is corruptible doesn't mean it is corrupt. For you to make the assertion it is without evidence is a logical fallacy. In regards to CC or AGW, I don't really care if it's referred to as CC or AGW. I tend toward AGW in conversations personally.

 

 

On 3/17/2019 at 12:09 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Brad is far too slick at the snake oil salesmanship to be innocently duped.  He's put effort into becoming good at the tricks.  Why?

This is cute, Ellen. And by cute, I really mean pathetic. Maybe try addressing some of the evidence I've brought forward instead of attacking the individual. It's called ad hom and it's really sad excuse of a debate tactic.

argument-pyramid.jpg&f=1

 

 

On 3/17/2019 at 7:29 AM, Brant Gaede said:

Data dumping isn't reasoning. It's bullying. This isn't a scientific forum.

It's interesting here Brant that you think being presented data is a form of bullying. In regards to the kind of forum it is or isn't, you don't have to participate in this conversation. So stop subjecting yourself to bullying tactics of looking at charts. Fairly certain that isn't the objectivist way of living.

 

On 3/17/2019 at 8:18 AM, Jonathan said:

I'm looking forward to seeing how Brad will slither in regard to certain subjects. I have my own little predictions of how I think he'll mutilate the concepts of, say, repeatability/reproducabilty or falsifiability. What twists will he put on those terms, what will he leave out and hope that we don't notice? He's already given us some pretty good looks at his style and preferences of dishonest tactics, and I think he'll follow the same. He's not very agile or adaptive. The snake won't change his stripes is my prediction.

As I said earlier Jonathan, it's much easier to address 1-2 specific topics at a time, rather than 5-6 large open ended questions. Here are a couple more resources about adjustments and temperature:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/ (this one even has a chart showing adjustments increasing the warming trend ☣️, and it's posted on a skeptics blog ☣️☣️)

http://berkeleyearth.org/methodology/  (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures - methodology)

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html(HADCRUT data center)

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (GISS data)

On final parting plot just ran across, JMA (Japan) temperature analysis:

temp_disagreements.png

https://skepticalscience.com/jma_temperature_record.html

 

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   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.

Loading...