Global Temperature Report: November 2014

From The University of Alabama, Huntsville – 36 years of data show regional warming


Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
November temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.33 C (about 0.60 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.36 C (about 0.65 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Tropics: +0.25 C (about 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
October temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.37 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.40 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.19 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Notes on data released Dec. 2, 2014:

November 2014 was the second warmest November in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

With a global average temperature that was 0.33 C (about 0.60 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, November 2014 trailed only November 2009, which averaged 0.39 C (about 0.70 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.

Nov2014graph Nov2014Map
The tropics slowly warmed through November in response to modest warming in the El Niño regions of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

Warmest Novembers (1979-2014)
(Warmer than seasonal norms)

1. 2009 +0.39 C
2. 2014 +0.33 C
3. 2005 +0.32 C
4. 2012 +0.31 C
5. 2002 +0.25 C
6. 2010 +0.24 C
7. 2003 +0.21 C
8. 1990 +0.20 C
2006 +0.20 C
10. 2008 +0.19 C
2013 +0.19 C

Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in November was in northwestern Wisconsin, just outside the town of Cable, where temperatures were as much as 3.29 C (about 5.92 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in November was in the Beaufort Sea off the northern coast of Alaska. Temperatures there were as much as 5.20 C (about 9.36 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.

This report represents the completion of 36 years (December 1978 through November 2014) of global temperature data collected by microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites. During that time the global atmosphere has warmed an average of 0.14 C per decade, or just over one-half degree C (0.91 degrees Fahrenheit) in 36 years.

1978_2014TrendMap

That warming has not, however, been uniform around the globe. The fastest warming has been over the Arctic Ocean and the Arctic portions of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Those areas have warmed at the rate of 0.49 C per decade, or more than 1.76 C (about 3.17 degrees Fahrenheit) in 36 years. The fastest warming spot is in Baffin Bay, where temperatures have risen 0.82 C per decade since 1978.

By comparison, the oceans surrounding the Antarctic are cooling at the rate of 0.02 C per decade, or 0.07 C since December 1978. The fastest cooling area is in East Antarctica near Dome C, where temperatures have been dropping at the rate of 0.50 C per decade.
Driven in part by those contrasting regions, the Northern Hemisphere is warming more than twice as fast as the Southern Hemisphere (0.19 C per decade vs. 0.09 C per decade).
The contiguous 48 U.S. states have an average warming rate of 0.22 C (almost 0.40 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade during the past 36 years. That means the average atmospheric temperature over the lower 48 has warmed by 0.79 C or about 1.43 degrees Fahrenheit during that time. Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —

Advertisements

75 thoughts on “Global Temperature Report: November 2014

  1. Let’s see. Mauna Loa shows annual mean CO2 for 1978 at 335 ppm and for 2014 at maybe 398 ppm. According to UAH the world has warmed ~.50 degrees C (.14 degree C per decade X 3.6 decades), while gaining ~63 ppm in CO2 concentration. That works out to a simple-minded transient climate sensitivity of 2.58 degrees C for a doubling from 335 to 670 ppm, ignoring all kinds of important factors.

    At the rate of 1.75 ppm per year (mean gain, 1978-2014), that doubling would take over 191 years, so I’m not too worried.

    • The rate of warming for the first 15 years is essentially zero. The rate of warming for the last 15 years is essentially zero. Its only the fudging of the thermometer record that makes it look like a century long warming rather than oscillating with maybe a smaller natural warming over the past 200 years.

      • John Casey at the space and science centre in Florida says that the oceans are cooling and that the earth is entering a 40 year cold period. Not sure what to make of this organization. opinions?

      • Mick, just read their press release and they do have some backers. When factoring in the forecast for SC 25, the press release makes for compulsive reading. Hopefully the Plan B mentioned will include shelving the EPA’s Power Plant proposed “rules”. Taking multiple coal fired power plants off line will only exacerbate the impact of a cold snap.

    • Catherine, your simple calculation misses the fact that the relation between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic, so you overestimate the warming with your simple approach (you should get 2 degrees C instead).

    • Catherine,

      You are ignoring that we are already far above 1.75 ppm per year and likely to substantially increase with global economic growth.

    • Because the heat went to the oceans. Try central heating or move east to Europe where you would be on latitudes of Paris or even souther than that.

      I’m living at 60N, and boy we have ‘cold’. +3°C today. They say we will get hotter summers. Aint gonna happen. Mistier Novembers might happen. OTOH, we have lots to loose if winds turn Siberian instead of Atlantic.

      • Is Minnesota not located on the globe we call Planet Earth? Did I miss it’s teleportation to another planet? When you say “Global Warming”, to any layman like myself, that means the Whole Planet is Warming. Warmer summers, Warmer winters. When Winters become much colder than usual, it totally throws that idea out the window. AGW is a hoax. Whatever Global Warming there is, it’s been going on since long before mankind started consuming fossil fuels to drive our technology and our development. We did not end the latest ice age, there were no SUVs around at the time. Nature is doing this, not us.

      • FAO Aaron Ingebrigtsen (@Krepta3000)

        ‘ When you say “Global Warming”, to any layman like myself, that means the Whole Planet is Warming’ not according to the well established global warming theory!. Some places will get warmer, some colder, some wetter, some drier. Because global warming creates climate change, but the over all temperature of the globe will increase!

  2. Questions comes to mind:
    1. Short-term linear trends in pseudo-sinusoidal data means what?????

    2. Given that CO2 is considered “well-mixed” throughout the troposphere and lower stratosphere, and IF CO2 was the climate control knob, why all the regional variability?

  3. By truncating the series at 1978, you make the warming look less then it is
    eg, see the first graphic here
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/03/3598698/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

    also, it is not clear why the troposphere is the right place to measure temperature

    also, reagarding your sarcasm re the hiatus and ocean warming, at least they are doning real science: they are doing experiments, testing them, and then changing their ideas as the data conflict
    it is the normal path of science

    • “so, it is not clear why the troposphere is the right place to measure temperature.”

      Where else?
      The IPCC apparently likes it? The CMIP ensembles spew out predictions on it.

      The huge flaw in the IPCC and their models is the failure to find the model predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot. That defect of observation from model prediction is not discussed well enough, IMO It would be as if a key predictions of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity wasn’t observed (say for instance, light bending near massive objects), and yet still have physicists accept GR, it would be absurd.

      • The ansence of the tropical troposphere hotspot even in CMIP5 is both discussed and explained in essay Humidity is still Wet in Blowing Smoke. And the inherent inability of GCM’s to correct the underlying problem (tropical convection cells, Willis Eschenbach’s thermoregulator and Prof Lindzens adaptive IR iris) is illustrated and explained in essay Models all the Way Down. The reason the IPCC and MSM do not dwell on it is that it is a structural falsification of the climate models as potent as the pause temporal falsification. And without the models, there is no AGW crisis demanding remediation.

    • RE: 1978
      Did you ever consider when the satellites launched and started collecting data? Yes, the warming started sometime in the 17th century. Your point is?

      • Theo,
        I think with facts, we might be creating some amount of cognitive dissonance for Ezra.

        The simple fact that there is no widely accepted physical explanation for the global cooling of the Earth’s climate from ~1350 AD to ~1850 AD, (aside from some periods of reduced solar activity combined with nonlinear dynamical Lorentzian attractor hand-waving), means that any warming we have observed in the last 160 years should mostly be natural variability. A reversion to a mean (if there is such a thing, which there probably isn’t since climate is likely not a stationary statistical process over centuries) climate of the Holocene, just happens to coincide with mankind’s industrialization and the use of carbon-rich energy sources to drive that innovation and industrialization.

      • Theo Barker December 3, 2014 at 11:45 am:
        ++++++
        BINGO!… and to add; the satellites measure from surface up… so includes surface temperature of all atmosphere which is the subject matter at hand. The other temperatures are all nonsense when you consider they include UHI effect. So the article rightly uses the entire record of the most accurate temperature records available…

    • >By truncating the series at 1978, you make the warming look less then it is eg, see the first graphic here.

      OK, let’s use a longer time series, 1850.042 to 2014.708, from the Met Office (HadCRUT4.3) http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.3.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
      The warming per decade for this is 0.0478 per C decade (about a third of the 0.14 C per decade since 1978 reported in the article.)

      A handier, but older HadCRUT version at Wood For Trees yields 0.047 deg. C per decade (click on “Raw data” to see the slope) since 1850.
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl

      So the question is: what is the right time period to use to not under estimate the warming?

      • I like going back 12,000 years or so.
        Let’s look at as much data of natural and ACO2 influence as we can.
        We should use all we know to test the CAGW hypothesis.
        Just stop hiding facts when the hypothesis fails.

  4. A scientist reports measurements with margins of error and explains/justifies the source and size of those margins of errors.

    If for some reason ranking is then done, it is done with the margin of error taken into account.

    Please, let’s not pretend we know things that we do not know. Leave that to those espousing CAGW.

    • Talking of Margins of Error….is there any measuring device available to mankind that does not have a built in margin of error? Other than the Atomic Clock….

      • Even atomic clocks has a margin of error. The question is: what quanta?

        Broad Generalization:
        In the real world here is no such thing as 100% or perfection, only approximations. The closer the approximation, the more you’ll pay for it. Add a (statistically signficant) digit of precision, increase the price by an order of magnitude. Simple engineering principle.

      • The point being that when you are discussing percentages of one degree F or C you are talking about noise….and then to what “Standard” are you calibrating your kit to?

  5. Given we are in an inter-glacial period, and factoring in any error, seems like it should be right on par to warm at 1.4C (or more) per century. Good news to me.

    • Today was a big hype in the mainstream media of Europe that 2014 is going to be the warmest year since 1880.

      My questions are:

      1) Which data curve is used for this claim?

      2) Is the data reliable or is it the outcome of intense “homogenization” ?

      3) How big and significant would be the difference to the former warmest year?

      Has anyone answers to my questions? Many thanks in advance.

      • Other years in contention are 1998, 2007 and 2010. Also, see http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php for a list of over 100 papers indicating the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, ~900 CE to 1300, estimates vary) was hotter than the Current Warm Period (CWP).

        1) Which…
        NOAA, WMO, Met Office (HadCRUT) and some others are being used for this claim. The two satellite records, RSS and UAH, will not support this claim.
        See Wood for Tress smoothed at 12 months to get an idea.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1998
        (The temperature records are anomalies [seasonally adjusted] and use different base years for the adjustment. So, don’t compare one curve to another. Only compare years within the same curve.)

        2) …reliable…
        Very controversial, some people prefer the satellite records, because they uniformly cover a much larger area of the earth without be influenced by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. The other records measure “surface” temperatures (water temperatures in the oceans and air temperatures at 2m over the land) and are presumably corrected for the UHI effect. Anthony Watts is working on a project to answer your question.

        3) How big…
        The difference is very small, on the order of hundreds of a deg. C.

      • Saw and read that on BBC , their “Science/Environment” section, by David Shukman. Dec 3 2014. We in Western Canada are going through our second stretch of way below normal temps (-5 to -14 C day/ night temps, normal 0 to -3 C ), twice now since mid Oct. and now Nov. early Dec… Yeah right warming, these people seem to never give up and the screeching is louder than ever, in some cases it is beyond the pale, try to read their commentary following the article. Thanks

    • You could always pair that with the well sited and controlled USCRN data which shows also that there is no warming going on….

      [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/uscrn_average_conus_jan2004-april20141.png[/img]

      From an earlier WUWT post!

  6. From the early 1980s to 2000, the height of the average Dutch man increased by more than 3 centimeters to 180 cm. At the time when Christopher Columbus discovered America they must have been about 100 cm high.

  7. Looking at the global images, I note that both poles show the greatest changes (positive and negative). I was under the impression that the satellite measurements were not complete over the poles. Does this mean that there is some kind of infilling of these areas and – if so – how do we get these extremes?

    PS. If someone could correct me on the polar coverage of the satellites I would be grateful.

    • Lake Superior had more ice due to a little known fact I just made up.

      You see, CO2 makes the water more acidic, and when the H2O is more acidic the left-hand H atom becomes a heat-sink, which leaves less heat for the right hand H atom and the O atom, so they freeze. Gosh, I thought everybody knew that.

      Can I have my grant money now? /sarc

      • You shouldn’t be doing that Caleb. Adding a /sarc reduces your chance at getting funded. Though it hasn’t seemed to have improved my chances. :-)

  8. When basic information for public consumption, such as Wikipedia, starts printing definite information about what the total “greenhouse effect” of Carbon Dioxide actually is, then, MAYBE, I will take these con men more seriously. As it stands when I look this up I get that CO2 is responsible for between 9% and 26% of the 33C of greenhousyness! So anywhere between 3C and 9C. I assume this is the settled science bit used to make the accurate models from with “66% certainly”
    Btw if I plot a graph with either of these two numbers from zero CO2 through to today and including a 0.9C rise since 1850 at 280ppm, neither graph has a methematical trajectory that allows any of the doomsday predictions of the IPCC to be correct!

  9. When basic information for public consumption, such as Wikipedia, starts printing definite information about what the total “greenhouse effect” of Carbon Dioxide actually is, then, MAYBE, I will take these con men more seriously. As it stands when I look this up I get that CO2 is responsible for between 9% and 26% of the 33C of greenhousyness! So anywhere between 3C and 9C. I assume this is the settled science bit used to make the accurate models from with “66% certainly”
    Btw if I plot a graph with either of these two numbers from zero CO2 through to today and including a 0.9C rise since 1850 at 280ppm, neither graph has a methematical trajectory that allows any of the doomsday predictions of the IPCC to be correct!

    • welcome to modern day climate science.

      The main stream media (MSM) and the politicians who espouse Climate Change need you to believe in their voodoo CO2 magic, and how it can be cured if you just let them control all the energy consumption in the world..

  10. Dr Christy informs us that “The fastest warming has been over the Arctic Ocean and the Arctic portions of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Those areas have warmed at the rate of 0.49 C per decade,…”. However what has happened to CO2 concentration? At Alert, NW Canada, the station closest to the Pole, the rate of increase of CO2 concentration has been +1.673 ppm per annum for the period July 1975 to December 2013.

    Dr Christy goes on to say “By comparison, the oceans surrounding the Antarctic are cooling at the rate of 0.02 C per decade,…. The fastest cooling area is in East Antarctica near Dome C, where temperatures have been dropping at the rate of 0.50 C per decade.” Obviously the IPCC theory that increased CO2 concentration causes increased temperature implies that there has been a drop in the CO2 concentration over the South Polar region. Surprisingly the rate of increase at the NOAA South Pole station has been +1.672 ppm per annum, identical to that over the North Polar region.

    Here we have clear and unambiguous data showing that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has nothing whatsoever to do with the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere over the Polar regions.

    The South Polar data is confirmed by the stations at Casey where the temperature has fallen at a rate of 0.78 deg C per century for a 9% rise in CO2 over 16.5 years and at Mawson where the rate of temperature fall has been 1.43 deg C per century for an 11.4% rise in CO2 over 23 years.

    Isn’t it time that the IPCC was disbanded to grossly misleading the public?

    • Looking at your webpage… thank you for your service. Thank you for your sacrifices.

      I too was in spec ops for a period of my military service from 1991-1996. I was at AFSOC Hurlburt Field (8th SOS Blackbirds). Best years of my life. So much accomplished. So very little known by the public. So much can never be told.

      Moved on now. Retired military officer. PhD now in Science. Research now in biomeds.

      So saddened with how our US government is becoming.

  11. CAGW warmunists are quickly running out of time and excuses.

    They’re currently trying to make the most out of a weak El Nino spike in global temps, but when the next La Nina cycle starts at the end of 2015/16, and global temps start falling again, CAGW is in a world of hurt.

    It has now been 18+ years with no global warming trend and 14+ years of falling global temp trends, despite CAGW advocates projecting 0.2C/decade temp trends for the early part of 21st century, and 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 made over just the last 18 years:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000.8/plot/rss/from:2000.8/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise

    The only way CAGW can still be taken seriously is if global temp trends suddenly and miraculously start tracking CAGW projections for the next 85 straight years, starting from next month:

    Every month that passes from here on out with a global warming trend below 0.38C/decade only makes future required trends that match CAGW projections that much steeper and untenable to achieve.

    CAGW gained wide appeal because out of sheer dumb luck the following phenomenon occurred between 1980~1998:

    1) Solar Cycles: The 2nd and 3rd strongest solar cycle since 1715 took place between 1976~1996, and marked the end of the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles (1933~1996) in 11,400 years.
    2) El Nino events: Between 1983~1998, six El Nino’s occurred in just 15 years, including the 97/98 Super El Nino, which was the strongest El Nino event ever recorded.
    3) The 30-yr PDO warm cycle started in 1978.
    4) The 30-yr AMO warm cycle started in 1994.

    Since 1998, the following phenomenon has occurred:

    1) Solar Cycles: The current solar cycle peaked in 2014 and is the weakest since 1906. Some astrophysicists are predicting the next solar cycle (starting around 2020) may be the weakest since the Maunder Minimum ended in 1715.
    2) El Nino Events: Since the 1997/98 Super El Nino, there has only been two El Nino events with a weak one now developing.
    3) The 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005.
    4) The 30-yr AMO warm cycle peaked in 2007 and is slowly cooling as it moves to its 30-yr cool cycle around 2020.

    Skeptics believe CO2’s forcing effect is weak (perhaps around 0.03~0.07C/decade) and is easily overwhelmed by natural cycles.

    Each passing month with a global temp trend below 0.38C/decade makes the skeptics’ case stronger and the CAGW warmunists’ case weaker.

    If current trends continue, in about 5 years, the CAGW hypothesis will be ready for the shredder.

  12. It has warmed some over some period. Why? Does it matter? Why all the knashing of teeth and generation of theories over such a small warming, that in any case, is likely a net benefit to society as a whole. Living in a place that has swings of 20 degrees C in a day makes it hard to get real hard to worry about 15/100ths of a degree per decade. My question is how much of this change is due to LESS COOL weather than more warm weather? It hasn’t changed the need to clear ice off my water troughs in the winter, nor do I run my air conditioning anymore than a few days in the summer. The discussion is interesting but it sometimes seems to be much ado about nothing … well actually much ado about the wrong things. I think there are more pressing world issues that are being sacrificed on the altar of CAGW.

    • Well stated, Wayne.

      It boggles the critical mind to understand what has happened to our supposed scientists who are experts in the climate physics and climate atmospherics fields.

      Questions:
      Is it merely about money and grant renewal? I understand one has to eat and support a family, but one’s integrity???
      Do they (guys/gals like Trenberth, Schmidt, Slingo) really honestly go to bed at night believing what is written by the IPCC on Climate Change? Do they have a clean conscience?

      CO2-based Climate Change is falsified from the IPCC CMIP5 models, or at a minimum they are so dubious at this point in time of the T pause and the failure of severe consequences (summer Arctic ice loss, heat waves, severe typhoons, etc). Their positions becomes laughably absurd. When do they admit it?

      Instead we see bumper grain harvests, abundant rains in Europe, UK, Australia, and North America. No year-after-year heat wave. No accelerating SLR. Genuine honest to goodness variability in weather… i.e. warm spells followed by quite cold and snow spells in NH November-December. The Antarctic Southern Ocean sea ice at record levels. Southern Ocean SST’s hitting modern low records.

    • Thanks Wayne. Although I do not crunch numbers often I did the same thing tonight and it seems we live in a similar daily climate. the annual changes seem so little it IS amazing about the screeching that is coming from the warmists. They are wrong and are reluctant to admit it.

  13. “Northern Hemisphere: +0.36 C (about 0.65 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.”

    The problem with this is the snow cover says different. The alleged above 30-year average temperatures do not jibe with the snow cover that was at or near record levels in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time.

    • I think of lake effect snow. Warm water, cold air blowing across it. Lots of moisture removal, leads to downwind snow… lots.

      Think of the Laurentian Ice Shiled of 25K years ago. How as that built?

      Cold winds blowing across a warm Arctic Ocean. Snow, Lake effect …millennia after millennia That is the only way a 2000-meter thick glacial ice pack can be built in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

  14. I just wish someone would explain coherently how increasing CO2 will not increase the global temperature. Given that the bonds within CO2 are at energy levels that are almost designed to absorb and then re-emit IR radiation it is obvious that increasing CO2 will result in more IR being absorbed by the atmosphere.
    So instead of the IR photon just escaping straight through the atmosphere to space it is intercepted by CO2 as an outgoing photon raising the quantum energy state of the molecule. When the CO2 energy bonds spontaneously drop to their previous energy state the re-emit that photon in random directions. Some go up, some go down. The down going ones of course heat the surface of the earth, the upgoing ones go to space. With more CO2 intercepting the IR then more of it will tend to be re-emmited towards the earths surface rather than escaping directly to space. Hence the surface of the earth get warmer. Suprisingly the maths show that the upper reaches of the atmosphere may actually get cooler. Hence why some sattelite data shows a cooling of the upper atmosphere. Of course this effect is jumped on as evidence that GW is not happening.
    Now add in the fact that as the surface warm we get more evaporation of moisture into the atmosphere. Guess what the bonds in H2O are also well tuned to absorbing IR and so by adding a little CO2 we have a feedback loop that increases the H2O content of the atmoshere and this adds to the warming.
    The maths for all this actually only takes around 4 simple equations which anyone with a little knowledge of calculus can understand. Thus in those 4 equations the fact that the energy of the climate must increase for increased CO2 is proven. The rest is just details as to how that energy is distributed globally which is were all those expensive global climate models come in.

Comments are closed.