# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 85
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1681 "2014-02-01T09:57:43Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > On the topics of stupidity and Dopers I see only when others quote them, **watchwolf49** would be a strong candidate for _best example of Dunning–Kruger effect_ except for one thing: some of his posts seem to admit that he knows how very limited his knowledge and understanding is. But why then does he persist in prattling his misunderstandings in such an insulting and pretentious manner? 😕 Perhaps he has superior intuition about dynamical systems. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1682 "2014-02-01T10:43:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Perhaps he has superior intuition about dynamical systems. I’ve worked professionally (and hold patents) in the fields of systems analysis, signal analysis, and pattern recognition. I don’t claim to be expert in dynamical systems, but feedback mechanisms are central to several of my inventions. You OTOH are acting like a pretentious dolt. If I thought you were sincere in fighting your own ignorance, I’d try to help, but first you’d have to be civil. Fair Warning: If you insult me again, I’ll set you to _Ignore_ and see only posts by you that others found amusing enough to quote. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1683 "2014-02-01T11:04:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The denial and pseudoscience is to claim water vapor is a feedback only, never a “forcing”, or a prime mover in climate. I think you have no fucking clue what climatologists _mean_ when they talk about radiative forcing. If you did, you _might_ have the barest idea why the amount of H[sub]2[/sub]O _can’t_ be a forcing. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1684 "2014-02-01T14:38:01Z")
I see y’all are good at insulting, and pointing out where I’m wrong … but I don’t see where anyone can correct me. > [@Kimstu](#): > > **Questioning** a scientific claim is certainly not “anti-science”. Incoherently and ignorantly attacking the use or validity of well-established scientific concepts, on the other hand, definitely qualifies as “anti-science”. What well-established scientific concepts? You throw that out there like you know something, but you don’t actually state what these principles are. It’s a risk, I know, and you know you’d be wrong. Pride of science is dangerous. > [@andros](#): > > You didn’t read a single word of that paper, did you? Yes I did, maybe you should try. > [@Ludovic](#): > > What’s a degree Kelvin? The Celsius scale is fine for everyday human activities, but it has negative values. This is mischief for thermodynamics because it gives negative values for energy content. Energy must always be positive in the classical universe. So we use the Kelvin scale which uses zero at absolute zero. From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_scale): “Thermodynamic scale [Kelvin] differs from empirical scales in that it is absolute. It is based on the fundamental laws of thermodynamics or statistical mechanics instead of some arbitrary chosen working material.” In the context of Climatology and Global Warming, Kelvin and Celsius are interchangeable. However, strictly speaking, one should use Kelvin since that scale is more technically correct. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Do you mean “water vapor feedback”? Because that’s what we’ve been talking about here. Go for it, tell us, in your own words, what exact is water’s positive feedback mechanism? Please don’t spare any details. > [@Kimstu](#): > > You realize, of course, that you just called your own “argument” speculative. If you claim (which I would dispute) that we can’t infer **anything** about CO2’s contribution to global warming until we fully understand the past half-million years’ glacial CO2 cycles illustrated by the figure in your link, then we can’t tell whether or not the CO2 contribution is “secondary at best”. You can infer Goldilocks from red roses if you want … but if you want to deduce man’s contribution to global warming, you’ll have to know why it occurs naturally. > [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > I don’t see where that backs up what you said. Can you clarify? Look at Table 3, this gives water’s contribution to output flux at 60% of the total, carbon dioxide as 26%. With constant input flux, these percentages reflect forcing. This backs my point that carbon dioxide is a secondary contributor. Just a reminder, 40% by mass of the products of complete combustion is indeed water vapor. > [@septimus](#): > > You OTOH are acting like a pretentious dolt. If I thought you were sincere in fighting your own ignorance, I’d try to help, but first you’d have to be civil. > > Fair Warning: If you insult me again, I’ll set you to _Ignore_ and see only posts by you that others found amusing enough to quote. I’ve asked this question above, please feel free to answer it and expunge our ignorance … in your own words, what exact is water’s positive feedback mechanism? Let me get this straight, you call someone a “pretentious dolt” and then threaten to set to _ignore_ if we insult you … hahaha … that must be a joke right? > [@MrDibble](#): > > I think you have no fucking clue what climatologists _mean_ when they talk about radiative forcing. If you did, you _might_ have the barest idea why the amount of H[sub]2[/sub]O _can’t_ be a forcing. Water is inert to infra-red radiation … okay … forcing = input flux + output flux … say hello to Mary Poppins in your universe. * * * I’ve tried to give answers to the questions presented to me, if I’ve missed any important ones, please forgive me and restate. Remember, you’re part of a dog pack all yapping and baying. Sometimes it’s hard to hear you over the racket. If you say I’m wrong, but don’t say what’s right, then I’m going to believe you don’t know either. In your own words, what exactly is water’s positive feedback mechanism … if you don’t know, just say so … I’d be happy to explain it. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1685 "2014-02-01T14:53:39Z")
Oh no, here we go again. When somebody who believes in catastrophic warming makes a claim, and you ask them to be specific, and explain what they mean, the conversation is pretty much over. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1686 "2014-02-01T14:56:52Z")
For example, I used a hurricane to make a point about water vapor. Because a hurricane involves a huge amount of water vapor, from the warm ocean surface, from both wind and low pressure. This massive heat engine moves heat from the warm sea surface to both cooler ocean regions, as well as land. Long distances, huge distances, massive amounts of water, and after it is over, do you think the ocean surface, the land, and the atmosphere is warmer? None of the baying pack answered, we even got a pedantic response, but never an honest answer. Do you actually think that the end result is more warming of the planet? It’s an easy question to answer. And it is about water vapor and “how it’s always a feedback”. never a cause of anything climate related. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1687 "2014-02-01T15:19:19Z")
Actually, nevermind. OTIO. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1688 "2014-02-01T15:23:31Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Water is inert to infra-red radiation Is this a statement by you, or are you trying to put words in my mouth I didn’t say? I really can’t tell which brand of stupid you’re going for, the scientifically blind or the rhetorically dumb. > [@](#): > > … okay … forcing = input flux + output flux Ha, ha ha! That’s \*a \*definition of forcing, I’ll give you that. The wrong one, in this context, but OK…so you, too, have no fucking clue why H[sub]2[/sub]O can’t be a forcing. And it can’t be one _definitionally_. Oh, and cupcake, here’s a liitle free clue-by-4 : it wasn’t your use of the Kelvin _scale_ that **Ludovic** was making fun of. It was the evidence in those two words “_degree_ Kelvin” that you are a complete physics _naïf_. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1689 "2014-02-01T15:42:01Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’ve worked professionally (and hold patents) in the fields of systems analysis, signal analysis, and pattern recognition. I don’t claim to be expert in dynamical systems, but feedback mechanisms are central to several of my inventions. What jobs have you held and for which companies? Where and when did you get your degree; what degree is it and in what field? What are the patent numbers for your patents? If you want to argue from authority, then at a minimum you need to back up your authority. > [@](#): > > You OTOH are acting like a pretentious dolt. If I thought you were sincere in fighting your own ignorance, I’d try to help, but first you’d have to be civil. Well one of us is ignorant, that’s for sure. Anyway, a couple pages ago I asked you the following question: > [@](#): > > Are you saying that it is known to a reasonable degree of certainty that astronomical effects have regularly had effects which were amplified? Completely civil and reasonable – and you ignored the question. We also had this exchange: > [@septimus](#): > > Nor is there “extremely little evidence” – that the forcing must be accomplished by positive feedback is obvious to anyone with intuition about dynamical systems. > [@brazil84](#): > > Well please explain your reasoning to me – because it’s not obvious to me. I was completely civil and reasonable – and you ignored my request. We also had this exchange: > [@septimus](#): > > The way that temperatures and levels of greenhouse gases track each other so exactly implies to me that there is strong positive feedback at work. HTH. > [@brazil84](#): > > Why? A completely civil and reasonable question – which you ignored. A couple posts later I said this: > [@brazil84](#): > > I don’t see how one can divine “strong positive feedback” just from observing that quantities tend to track each other closely. Certainly one can infer that the two quantities are related. One can reasonably hypothesize that changes in one cause changes in the other (although it’s also possible that some third factor is affecting both independently). > > But how do you get strong positive feedback? I’m not seeing it, but I am eager to consider septimus’s argument. If I were really ignorant of some important facts or arguments, and you really wanted to address it, then you would have answered my civil, reasonable questions. But instead you ignored them. I assume it’s because you do not have good answers but I will give you another chance. Please answer my simple, reasonable questions. Otherwise, I will continue to heap well-deserved ridicule on you. > [@](#): > > Fair Warning: If you insult me again, I’ll set you to _Ignore_ and see only posts by you that others found amusing enough to quote. If you see it as insulting when someone legitimately ridicules an unsupported claim (which claim is in fact ridiculous), then so be it. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1690 "2014-02-01T15:43:56Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Yes I did, maybe you should try. I read it, sweetie. It does not support your assertion that > [@watchwolf49](#): > > The routine physics concept of carbon dioxide feedback does violate this principle of thermodynamics. It just doesn’t transfer near enough of the total energy, about 26% is all. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1691 "2014-02-01T15:52:29Z")
Man this topic is crowded with all kinds of different subjects. If only there was a science based forum here where such things could be discussed. That would be fucking awesome. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1692 "2014-02-01T15:54:00Z")
Well, why don’t you get the mods to step in then…Oh! ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1693 "2014-02-01T16:05:57Z")
Why don’t you answer the questions about SCIENCE bitch? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1694 "2014-02-01T16:13:00Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > [1.] What jobs have you held and for which companies? > Where and when did you get your degree; what degree is it and in what field? > What are the patent numbers for your patents? > > [2.] Are you saying that it is known to a reasonable degree of certainty that astronomical effects have regularly had effects which were amplified? > > [3.] > [QUOTE=septimus] > The way that temperatures and levels of greenhouse gases track each other so exactly implies to me that there is strong positive feedback at work. Why? I don’t see how one can divine “strong positive feedback” just from observing that quantities tend to track each other closely. Certainly one can infer that the two quantities are related. One can reasonably hypothesize that changes in one cause changes in the other (although it’s also possible that some third factor is affecting both independently). But how do you get strong positive feedback? I’m not seeing it, but I am eager to consider septimus’s argument. [/QUOTE] 1. I do not intend to reveal my true name on this board. My claims are true, but you are welcome to your own opinions. 2. The known astronomical effects on input radiation are inadequate to explain Pleistocene variations; they serve as stimuli to begin change which is furthered by positive feedbacks. CO2 does track temperature closely during the Pleistocene, and it is a greenhouse gas – surely you don’t contest either of those facts? Were the temperature change strictly due to the astronomical effects, why does CO2 level change? Because CO2 is expelled by the ocean as it warms. This is well known, and is positive feedback. I won’t provide cites: all of this is very clear even to someone who has studied relevant Wikipedia pages, or even read the excellent posts by **wolfpup**. In fact, it is all so clear, that one wonders what your game is, or what sort of “Gotcha” card you want to play. That I didn’t elaborate this earlier is because it seems unnecessary to review such basics to someone claiming awareness of the topic. Yes, there are also negative feedback mechanisms, e.g. the expulsion of CO2 as water freezes. I mentioned this in the very first post of the subthread; indeed the elegant operation of the complementary feedback mechanisms was what intrigued me – not political considerations. 1. If CO2 and temperature were not tied _in both directions_ causally, their lockstep movement would be almost inexplicable. If you can articulate this better than I, take pride in doing so. If instead your intuition is inadequate to grasp the point without further help, that’s your loss. Does this help? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1695 "2014-02-01T16:14:14Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Why don’t you answer the questions about SCIENCE bitch? Have I been asked any? I hadn’t seen any addressed to me. Trollop. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1696 "2014-02-01T16:21:52Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Why don’t you answer the questions about SCIENCE bitch? Plus, you do know this isn’t Great Debates, right? Heifer. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1697 "2014-02-01T16:39:28Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 1. I do not intend to reveal my true name on this board. My claims are true, but you are welcome to your own opinions. Then you will have to rely on evidence and argument – not assertions from authority. > [@](#): > > The known astronomical effects on input radiation are inadequate to explain Pleistocene variations; 1. How much of an effect would such effects have had standing alone? And how much variation was there? 2. Is this based on calculations or simulations? If it is based on calculations, where I can see the calculations? If it is based on simulations, how have the simulations been tested? 3. How were other possible causes of such variations ruled out? > [@](#): > > CO2 does track temperature closely during the Pleistocene, and it is a greenhouse gas – surely you don’t contest either of those facts? Nope. > [@](#): > > Were the temperature change strictly due to the astronomical effects, why does CO2 level change? Because CO2 is expelled by the ocean as it warms. This is well known, and is positive feedback. What is not known is what other feedbacks – positive or negative – might have been in effect at the time. Agreed? > [@](#): > > 1. If CO2 and temperature were not tied _in both directions_ causally, their lockstep movement would be almost inexplicable. Not true at all: Here’s a possible explanation: Temperature drives CO2 levels and changes in CO2 levels (at that level) have little effect on temperature. As a rough analogy, crude oil prices drive the price for a gallon of gasoline at the Sunoco station in Cape May, New Jersey but the price for a gallon of gasoline at the Sunoco station in Cape May, New Jersey has little effect on world crude oil prices. Does that help? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1698 "2014-02-01T17:04:53Z")
Hi, Brazil! > [@brazil84](#): > > Not true at all: Here’s a possible explanation: Temperature drives CO2 levels and changes in CO2 levels (at that level) have little effect on temperature. > > Does that help? Most of the claims you question are present in Wikipedia articles, etc. Read such sources, and challenge any false claim you think they make. At no point have I claimed to have any expertise in climatology. The question about feedback involves two putative cause/effect relationships; A–\> B and B–\>A. If A were the _only_ cause of B, then A and B would track, there would be no need for B–\>A. _The interesting case is where B has multiple causes_; for example temperature change is caused by _either_ greenhouse gas change _or_ by other sources, e.g. astronomical effects. Because A (CO2) tracks B (temperature) even when the temperature change is caused by astronomical effects, B–\>A (temperature–\>CO2) causality can then be posited. And in fact, such causal mechanisms (leading to positive feedback) are known, as I think you know by now. This debate started with your assertion that the dominance of such positive feedback over a broad range of Pleistocene temperatures was unclear. Did I misunderstand? Do you get it yet? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1699 "2014-02-01T19:06:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Most of the claims you question are present in Wikipedia articles, etc. Read such sources, and challenge any false claim you think they make. At no point have I claimed to have any expertise in climatology. Sorry, it’s not my responsibility to go looking for the evidence and argument which underpin your claims. If you choose not to answer simple, reasonable questions about the claims you are making, I will draw my own conclusions. > [@](#): > > The question about feedback involves two putative cause/effect relationships; A–\> B and B–\>A. If A were the _only_ cause of B, then A and B would track, there would be no need for B–\>A. _The interesting case is where B has multiple causes_; for example temperature change is caused by _either_ greenhouse gas change _or_ by other sources, e.g. astronomical effects. Because A (CO2) tracks B (temperature) even when the temperature change is caused by astronomical effects, B–\>A (temperature–\>CO2) causality can then be posited. Ok, so it sounds like you concede that if (1) changes in temperature were the primary cause of changes in CO2 levels during the Pleistocene; and if (2) changes in CO2 levels (at that level) have little effect on temperature, then one would expect the two quantities to track one another. Right? > [@](#): > > This debate started with your assertion that the dominance of such positive feedback over a broad range of Pleistocene temperatures was unclear. Not exactly, but close enough. BTW: Are you aware that the positive feedback which is claimed by warmists is not the alleged positive feedback you are describing? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1700 "2014-02-02T02:25:40Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I see y’all are good at insulting, and pointing out where I’m wrong … but I don’t see where anyone can correct me. I don’t think the ignorant are even very good at the insults. To really insult somebody you have to be aware, have some knowledge of the subject, and like in regards to climate science, it seems the more insulting a person is, the less they actually know. It’s some sort of law of human nature. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Look at Table 3, this gives water’s contribution to output flux at 60% of the total, carbon dioxide as 26%. It’s hard to believe anyone is so ignorant as to argue with that figure, it seems quite well known. > [@](#): > > Similarly, carbon dioxide absorption bands occur around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm,[26] but its presence in the Earth’s atmosphere accounts for just 26% of the greenhouse effect.[24] [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water) So when you read some fuckhead spewing his ignorance on the matter, well, it’s either willful ignorance or trolling. > [@andros](#): > > I read it, sweetie. It does not support your assertion that Both are obnoxious, but any insult coming from such a deluded source will be treated as the canned garbage it actually is. In fact, it makes all pronouncements a joke after that. It’s the goddamn internet, if you can’t look up basic facts, things easily verified, then you are not just a troll, you are a bad one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=84) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=86)