Re: the IPCC report basics
philmonk
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2ff022f-1212-4c28...@k7g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 6:56 am, "Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read the IPCC report, I thought I wouldn't get it and it would be in
> some
> strange scientific language. But I get it...I hope. I'm just double
> checking
> that I have grasped the basic arguments from the IPCC report. If I
> have...I'm sorry climate deniers but I agree with the science in this
> report.
>
> Global Greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities have grown since
> pre-industrial times, and increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004
> These gasses have come from energy supply and transport and industry,
> while
> residential and commercial buildings, forestry (including deforestation)
> and
> agriculture sectors have been growing at a lower rate but also contribute
> to
> the amount of Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
>
> Changes in greenhouse gas concentration drives climate (as more is added
> it
> get's warmer) and human activities produce CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous
> oxide
> (N2O) and halocarbons and these have increased since 1750 (from 280ppm to
> 379ppm in 2007) and the amount in the atmosphere is at the highest level
> yet
> (300 parts per million)
>
> As greenhouse gasses produced by humans have gone up, so has temperature.
>
> Man made global warming is the best explanation for the increase in
> temperature, if natural trends continued at the rate they were going the
> planet would be cooling.
Parts of it Seon. Good to see you've, at least, dipped into the
report. Now have you learned anything?
======================================
Yes, I learnt this....
The IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where lead author
Benjamin D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by genuine
scientists, and without the scientists being made aware of these changes.
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in
greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
Then we have some choice quotes from so-called "consensus scientists".
"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to
beat the crap out of him."
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
[Referring to global warming skeptic Pat Michaels]
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for
Keith's to hide the decline."
Phil Jones email, 16 Nov 1999
"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been
after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom
of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone."
Phil Jones email, Feb 2 2005
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and
I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
[cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment,
and it is a travesty that we can't .there should be even more warming... the
data are surely wrong".
Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, US Centre for Atmospheric Research
"...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't
being political, it is being selfish. "
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to get rid of the Mediæval Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist
David Deming by the IPCC, 1995
[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck who mistakenly thought he was
talking to a fellow warmist, which Prof Deming didn't deny in an email
response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author.]
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"I tried the same run [Fourier Transform] on the CRU global temperature set.
Even though CRU must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are
worked out, the 11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of
Sydney's."
[E-mail from Dr Daly 9 August 1996. Dr Daly uncovered an eleven-year signal
in the temperature data set from the island of Tasmania. It is clear from
the tone of his e-mail that he considers this obvious solar influence on
climate as unwelcome news.]
"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they
were talking about their role as lead authors for the IPCC. And they were
talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the
US would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol."
Dr John Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville on CNN May 2 2007.
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Professor Stephen
Schneider
"Humans need a common motivation ... either a real one or else one invented
for the purpose. ... In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by
human intervention so the real enemy then, is humanity itself." Club of Rome
declaration
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is
true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991
Now what conclusion would a rational and sceptical person come to?
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman
of the George C. Marshall Institute, summed it up nicely after seeing the
changes made to the IPCC report.
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
report."
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
philmonk
"Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijl577$4oc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I read the IPCC report, I thought I wouldn't get it and it would be in some
>strange scientific language. But I get it...I hope. I'm just double
>checking that I have grasped the basic arguments from the IPCC report. If I
>have...I'm sorry climate deniers but I agree with the science in this
>report.
First we had the IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where
Mr Robot
...
> "philmonk" <z...@yyy.com> wrote:
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e2ff022f-1212-4c28...@k7g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 6:56 am, "Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Parts of it Seon. Good to see you've, at least, dipped into the
> report. Now have you learned anything?
> ======================================
> Yes, I learnt this....
Wikipedia
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007
Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the 4th in a
series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic
information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options
for adaptation and mitigation. The report is the largest and most detailed
summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, involving 1000s of
authors from dozens of countries, and states in its summary, * "Warming of the
climate system is unequivocal." * "Most of the observed increase in global
average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Climate Change 2007: Report Overview
The Fourth Assessment Report (Climate Change 2007) is released in 4
distinct sections:
* Working Group I Report (WGI): Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis.
* Working Group II Report (WGII): Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability.
* Working Group III Report (WGIII): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of
Climate Change (final version).
* The Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers (SPM)PDF (1.92 MB)
(pre-copy edit version).
For each section, the IPCC will release the main report and a summary version,
known as the Summary for Policymakers. Full reports and summaries of Working
Groups I-III have been released, plus a summary of the Synthesis Report.
Observations
The report notes many observed changes in the Earth's climate including
atmospheric composition, global average temperatures, ocean conditions, and
other climate changes.
Changes in the atmosphere
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all long-lived
greenhouse gases.
* "Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a
result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial
values."
* The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the
natural range of the last 650k y (180 to 300 ppm).
* The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by
far the natural range of the last 650k y (320 to 790 ppb).
* The primary source of the increase in CO2 is fossil fuel use, but
land-use changes also make a contribution.
* The primary source of the increase in methane is very likely to be a
combination of human agricultural activities and fossil fuel use. How
much each contributes is not well determined.
* Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial value of 270
ppb to a 2005 value of 319 ppb. More than a 3rd of this rise is due to human
activity, primarily agriculture.
Warming of the planet
Cold days, cold nights, and frost events have become less frequent. Hot
days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.
Additionally:
* Eleven of the twelve y in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12
warmest y in the instrumental record (since 1850, towards the end of the
Little Ice Age).
* Warming in the last 100 y has caused about a 0.74 °C increase in global
average temperature. This is up from the 0.6 °C increase in the 100 y prior
to the Third Assessment Report.
* Urban heat island effects were determined to have negligible influence
(less than 0.0006 °C per decade over land and zero over oceans) on these
measurements.
* Observations since 1961 show that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80%
of the heat added to the climate system, and that ocean temperatures have
increased to depths of at least 3000 m (9800 ft).
* "Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average
rate in the past 100 years."
* It is likely that greenhouse gases would have caused more warming than we
have observed if not for the cooling effects of volcanic and human-caused
aerosols. See global dimming.
* Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second 1/2 of the 20th
century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the
last 500 y and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 y (including
both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age).
Ice, snow, permafrost, rain, and the oceans
The SPM documents increases in wind intensity, decline of permafrost coverage,
and increases of both drought and heavy precipitation events. Additionally:
* "Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both
hemispheres."
* Losses from the land-based ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have
very likely (>90%) contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003.
* Ocean warming causes seawater to expand, which contributes to sea
level rising.
* Sea level rose at an average rate of about 1.8 mm/year during the years
1961-2003. The rise in sea level during 1993-2003 was at an average rate of
3.1 mm/year. It is not clear whether this is a long-term trend or just
variability.
* Antarctic sea ice shows no significant overall trend, consistent with a
lack of warming in that region.
Hurricanes
* There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North
Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases in sea
surface temperature.
* The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate
models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced.
* There is no clear trend in the number of hurricanes.
* Other regions appear to have experienced increased hurricane intensity as
well, but there are concerns about the quality of data in these other
regions.
* It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human
contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.
* It is likely (>66%) that we will see increases in hurricane intensity during
the 21st century.
Table SPM-2 lists recent trends along with certainty levels for the trend
having actually occurred, for a human contribution to the trend, and for the
trend occurring in the future. In relation to changes (including increased
hurricane intensity) where the certainty of a human contribution is stated as
"more likely than not" footnote f to table SPM-2 notes "Magnitude of
anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena
based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."
Factors that warm or cool the planet
Changes in radiative forcings between 1750 and 2005 as estimated by the
IPCC.
AR4 describes warming and cooling effects on the planet in terms of
radiative forcing -- the rate of change of energy in the system, measured
as power per unit area (in SI units, W/m²). The report shows in detail the
individual warming contributions (positive forcing) of carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, other human warming factors, and the
warming effects of changes in solar activity. Also shown are the cooling
effects (negative forcing) of aerosols, land-use changes, and other
human activities. All values are shown as a change from pre-industrial
conditions.
* Total radiative forcing from the sum of all human activities is about +1.6
watts/m²
* Radiative forcing from an increase of solar intensity since 1750 is
about +0.12 watts/m²
* Radiative forcing from carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide combined
is very likely (>90%) increasing more quickly during the current era
(1750-present) than at any other time in the last 10k years.
Climate sensitivity
Climate sensitivity is defined as the amount of global average surface
warming following a doubling of CO2 concentrations.
It is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C, with a best estimate of about
3 °C. This range of values is not a projection of the temperature rise we will
see in the 21st century, since the future change in carbon dioxide
concentrations is unknown, and factors besides CO2 concentrations
affect temperature.
MYREF: 20110219131915 msg2011021931190
[118 more news items]
---
A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise". A
kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says
"Surprise! The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".
philmonk
On Feb 19, 11:51 am, Peter Muehlbauer
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> In a few hundreds of years, IPCC reports will be just a bunch of stories
> written by people hundreds of years after the alleged events (or decades
> when
> it comes to the gospels)...
Says a climate denier who knows full well that increasing the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere *will* cause warming.
Odd that.
======================================
Yes really odd that you agree that CO2 hasn't caused much warming so far!
Some FACTS ...
The human component of CO2 that is injected into the air each year is very
small, on the order of 3%.
Half the CO2 emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately
absorbed into nature.
CO2 is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the
greenhouse effect.
By volume, CO2 is currently at about 390 parts per million in the
atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually.
In other words, CO2 is increasing at a rate of 0.5% per year.
Since human activity adds 3% of the CO2 that gets into the air each year,
the human component of the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere each year is
3% of 0.5%, or just .015%.
Mr Posting Robot
camorim
Feb 25, 2011
Tree of life will become slimmer says study in Nature
Grenoble, France -- A study just published in the journal Nature by
researchers in France, Portugal and Spain looks for the 1st time at the
effects of climate change on the tree of life (that aggregates species
according to their evolution/genetic similarity) to find that the whole of it
will be affected. But this is not all bad news because even if the tree is to
become "thinner" it keeps its structure as there will be no major losses of
biodiversity contrary to what other studies had suggested (this would occur if
localised "branches" were totally eliminated). It still can be a "poisoned
present" though if nothing is done to control climate change because a pattern
of widespread affected species is also the 1st step to mass
extinctions. Although the work by Wilfried Thuiller, Miguel Araújo and
colleagues does not predict how many species will disappear as result of the
present course of climate change the pattern that reveals is a wakeup call for
the need to effectively and rapidly tackle its threat.
The disappearance of species throughout earth's history is part of life
constant evolution, after all only 3% of those that have ever lived on earth
are still alive. But human intervention - from destroying habitats to pushing
climate change - is accelerating this process to such levels that some
scientists have started talking about the possibility of a new episode of mass
extinction like the one that led to the disappearance of the dinosaurs 65 mn y
ago. The unavoidable reality is that an exceptional number of species are at
risk - the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2009
calculated that as much as 36% of all known species were in risk of
disappearing, with the rate of species loss now 100-1k times faster than
previous values.
Climate change has already been responsible for at least an episode of species
mass extinction - a very abrupt and severe cooling is believed to have caused
the 1st widespread disappearance of life - and currently is considered the
main cause of species disappearance. The reality is that its effects are more
conspicuous than ever from polar bears losing their habitat to birds and
butterflies migrating in mass to cooler regions. The leading international
body for the assessment of climate change - the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) - is predicting that if global warming is bigger than
2.5° C about 20-30% of species worldwide will be at risk of extinction, while
to cross the barrier of 3.5° C will be enough to eradicate 40-70% of them.
But different species have different vulnerabilities to climate change - large
animals, those living in small territories or in very specific ecosystems are
among the most vulnerable - what can create additional problems. In fact, if
many similar species (with similar susceptibilities) vanish together there
will a drastic reduction of biodiversity compromising not only the potential
for future evolution - after all each time a species disappears the
independent evolutionary history existent in that lineage is lost forever -
but also the normal functioning of earth's many ecosystems. Ecosystems -
groups of living organisms (plants, animals and others) that interact in the
same area - are the basis of all life on earth affecting from the atmosphere
to the water surfaces. And like a building where bricks are species, if too
many bricks close together are being removed the entire building foundation -
in this case earth's ecosystems - can collapse. By compromising biodiversity
climate change effects could then be much more complicated than the "just" the
loss of individual habitats or species.
To address this possibility Thuiller, Araújo and colleagues constructed a
detailed tree of life - where organisms are grouped according to their
evolutionary closeness - for a large number of plants, birds and mammals from
Europe and then using several climate models predicted what would happen to
them in 2020, 2050 and 2080. "To distinguish extinctions by climate change
from those that would occur normally we created normal random extinction
scenarios as controls" explains the article 1st author Wilfried Thuiller from
the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Grenoble, France.
Interestingly, and contrary to other threats, the researchers found that
climate change effects were similar to "normal" random extinctions and would
not create large "holes" in the tree of life as others have hypothesised
before. "This happens because vulnerable species do not have less or closer
relatives than less vulnerable species" explain the researchers. And this is
good news as the potential to disaster would be much quicker otherwise. But
only if climate change levels do not reach extreme levels...
Miguel Araújo from the University of Évora in Portugal and National Museum of
Natural Sciences, Madrid explains: "whether random extinctions throughout the
tree of life are less dangerous or not than extinctions in very specific parts
of the tree only depends on the levels of climate change - if extinction is
moderated the loss of specific parts of the tree can be more danger than
disperse extinctions even if it only because it affects the potential for
evolution on earth. But if extinctions reach the level seen in episodes of
mass extinctions then a more spread pattern of extinctions can be catastrophic
because it compromises the future of too many biological groups"
Thuiller, Araújo's work also predicts that the S will be the most affected
region in Europe with reduction of biodiversity while the opposite will occur
in the N of the continent leading to a homogenization of the map of species
throughout Europe what can help in the design of conservation policies.
But why are Thuiller, Araújo's results different than those of previous
research? The difference lies in the groups they use - they are the 1st ones
looking at the effects of climate change in phylogenetic groups - where
species are grouped according to their true evolutionary relatedness - in
opposition to the taxonomic groups used in previous studies. And while
taxonomic groups also reflect evolutionary relations these are deduced from
form and function making them much less accurate when predicting future
evolutions. Phylogeny after all it is called the tree of life and considered
to represent the true underlying structure of life.
MYREF: 20110226122758 msg201102266736
[127 more news items]
---
[Yasi is "the worst cyclone" to hit Qld:]
CORRECTION: The worst cyclone in history was the cat 5 Mahina in 1899.
[Bzzt! Thank you, come again!]
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 3 Feb 2011 15:12 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
Yuli Tri Suwarni
The Jakarta Post
03/01/2011
Bandung -- New bird flu cases have been detected in 11 of W Java's 26 cities
and regencies. Experts are blaming a lack of public awareness about the
importance of cleanliness when handling poultry coupled with the effects of
climate change.
Since Jan 4, 2011, there have been 41 reported avian flu infections in humans
in Indonesia, with nearly 33,929 chickens dead from the virus. W Java
Animal Husbandry Office head Kusmayadi said Mon that the virus was spreading
because of the unpredictable weather.
The public's awareness of the importance of cleanliness in poultry sheds has
also dropped significantly.
The largest number of chicken deaths was found in a poultry shed in Sukabumi,
where 30k chickens had died.
"Raining, dry, raining, dry. The weather has strengthened the attacking power
of the virus at a time when public awareness is diminishing," Kusmayadi said.
The 11 cities and regencies struck by the new bird flu outbreaks were Bekasi,
W Bandung, Purwakarta, Majalengka, Sukabumi, Kuningan, Indramayu, Garut,
Depok, Bogor and Sumedang.
The latest case was in Garut, where 1k chickens raised in residents' yards
were reported to have died since Jan 12, 2011, because of the virus.
"They were late to report [the deaths] and the chicken carcasses were thrown
randomly in open fields," Garut Animal Husbandry Office head Dida K. Endang
said.
Garut General Hospital has also been treating 2 patients since last week
suspected of having bird flu. The 2 patients were a 49-year-old and a
nine-month-old infant.
The 2 had high fevers reaching 38 degrees Celsius and were suffering from
breathing problems. The results of blood tests were not yet available, Garut
Health Office head Dede Rohmansyah said.
"There have been 163 patients suffering from influenza-like illnesses in the
areas where dead chickens were found. But, hopefully, they are not infected
with bird flu," Dede said.
In Dumai, Riau, a bird flu outbreak was also reported following the discovery
of 100s of dead chickens in a number of areas.
Agus of the Pekanbaru Animal Husbandry Office said Mon that bird flu
infections had been detected in several subdistricts in W Dumai district.
"After checking the officers found one bird flu infection in Bukit Timah
subdistrict. Out of the 3 chickens tested, 2 were bird flu positive," Agus
said, as quoted by Antara news agency.
Meanwhile, in Surakarta, Central Java, the local agriculture office declared
all cattle and goats there were free of anthrax infections after receiving
test results.
The announcement was made following a recent anthrax outbreak in adjacent
Boyolali.
A team was immediately deployed to test the cattle and goats in Surakarta in a
bid to prevent the spread of anthrax.
MYREF: 20110301073347 msg2011030114589
[132 more news items]
---
Of course "global temperature are rising" [...]
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 8 Feb 2011 12:22 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
ABC News
March 16, 2011 12:48:00
There is concern about a harmful weed that is threatening to take hold on
farms in S Australia's Mallee and upper south-east.
Silverleaf nightshade is already covering 1000s of hectares of Australia from
Queensland to Western Australia, and is difficult to control.
Alan Piggott from the Mallee and Coorong Natural Resources Management Group
says the weed is spreading faster because of recent wet weather.
"We really do need to keep on top of it, it's a very competitive weed and
certainly can decrease production in your paddocks quite dramatically," he
said.
"The residues from the plants can be quite competitive, it has a very
aggressive temperate system and also it will deplete the soil ... moisture
quite dramatically."
MYREF: 20110318200001 msg2011031814661
[138 more news items]
---
[Assault on Vostok icecores:]
YOU are the one presenting the "evidence." Your evidence MUST be
performed using proven standards, not untested guesswork.
-- Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net>, 24 Feb 2011 19:49 -0600