Dr Tom van Hoof: Greenland ice core records ‘redrawn’

Posted: December 28, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Submitted on 2010/12/28 at 6:48 am

As one of the “stomata” people and author of the cited Tellus paper, I want to draw attention to one of the most interesting outcomes of our research. That is that for the past thousand years the stomata records seem to match with respect to timing to two Antarctic ice core records which are not often cited…. Matching variabilities between ice cores of such resolution has not been achieved yet… well, ice core people claim that they reproduce their flat liners, but if you zoom into detail the small fluxes never match with respect to timing… The lone fact that stomata data of the USA and Europe have the same timing of a CO2 wiggle which has also been recorded (but with a much lower amplitude) in two Antarctic ice cores is evidence enough that Co2 variability has been larger in the past millennium then assumed. If the variability would have been as small as the ice cores tell us, plants would never ever have picked up this signal on two different continents on another hemisphere…

[F]or the somewhat older stomata data ( I focussed on the past 1000 yrs but my colleages on the whole Holocene) there are Greenland iced-core records which match pretty well… However, we can’t use them for publictions as the ice community officially redrew them as soon as the Antarctic records became available.. they claimed the records are contaminated by too much dust in the ice….
Furthermore I want to mention that we fully understand there are uncertainties with the stomata data. what bothers me is that for our records the scientific community focusses on these uncertainties in exact prediction while all the flaws and errors in ice data are ignored… furthermore it is quite amusing for me as a biologist to read the papers where physicists try to attack the proxies by playing plant physiologist…. I am very surprised the scientific community does not have a very warm welcome for new innovative techniques when those techniques put question marks at established ideas.., I always learned that these discussions are the fundamental backbone for science… therefore my hope that climate science will ever become a fullgrown scientific discipline is lost as long as politics (read funding) keeps intermingling..

———————————————————————————————————-

Dr van  Hoof is referring to Dave Middleton’s analysis here:
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata-wuwt/

The “cited Tellus paper” is:

Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus (2005), 57B, 351–355.

Comments
  1. Tim Channon says:

    Grin, as I said, deep ocean overturn.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tim, and a merry Christmas to you. Tell us more about your deep ocean overturn ideas.

  3. Tim Channon says:

    Greetings. Been here just not posting.

    My current opinion based on the detailed work on CO2 data is that there is no human signature, primarily a long period wave. This is also predictive.

    On that plain basis the question is that if humans are discounted then why?

    There is an alternate source of CO2 in deep ocean water. This has periods ranging from a few years through to thousands and so a couple of hundred years fits well. Unfortunately there is liittle hard data. Some pretty graphics on deep ocean circulation exist, some to do with wanting funding for research.

    I am also aware that emissions occur subsea directly into solution, the effect of which is unknown.

    The ocean is the primary CO2 sink, not vegetation.
    A poser for thought: if the Amazon basin is a massive carbon sink and as claimed the soil is very thin, how come? Why is it not very deep in carbon?
    Dead and some alive stuff is munched by critters, consumed, producing CO2 and CH4 and also a lot flows down the rivers… into the ocean.
    Ocean floor carboniferous rock forming is the primary sink.
    Some is eventually subducted and cooked, one reason why volcanos emit so much CO2.
    And so on. Simple it ain’t.

    The article mentions low CO2 at the poles. Of the two the Arctic is interesting. This also happens to be a cold water (very high gas solubility) water subduction zone. At the same time high CO2 has been noticed in the far north, to the north of the industrial zone but never satisfactorily explained.

    That is where my theory about northern ice driving the annual CO2 cycle has a linkage. The data fit is quite good. In this is the gas solubility, a maximum in water then it freezes expelling most gas. A lot of complication.

    A huge effort has been made by science to prove human causal, not the same thing as discovering what is actually happening. Seems that more question marks are produced than answers, still we have far from complete answers. In essence the data refuses to match the posit.

    If that wave is reality it suggests eg. Beck has some merit but not the 1940s stuff.

    My guess is also that this stuff is linked to extraterrestrial effects where similar periodicy seems to be present in radionuclides.

  4. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Tim Channon says:
    December 29, 2010 at 4:00 am
    “The ocean is the primary CO2 sink, not vegetation.
    A poser for thought: if the Amazon basin is a massive carbon sink and as claimed the soil is very thin, how come? Why is it not very deep in carbon?”

    Very true, warn wet soils of the Amazon eat up all downed vegetation in short order! There is little or no accumulation of humus. The only CO2 storage is in the live standing vegetation. The only surface sink of CO2 is in cold bogs that become peat and coal beds. Nearly all surface vegetation is in steady state condition of carbon in and out.

    For all practical purposes the Oceans are the planets carbon sink. The water temperature and atmospheric pressure set the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ( vapor pressure any one) and the temperature and salts in solution set the CO percentage in the ocean. Any excess will precipitate out as carbonates. There are far more salts in the oceans then any amount that the humans could dig and burn.

    As the earth ages it accumulates salts in the oceans and scrubs the CO2 from the atmosphere. The more salts, the less CO2 remains. Much of the life fixed CO2 in the oceans becomes trapped with the carbonates that are being precipitated to the ocean floor.

    All of which is a waste of effort as CO2 has nothing to do with the atmospheric temperature of the earth! The sun and water does! Cause and effect of ocean and atmosphere circulations and clouds. Energy flows in and between solar system components. This is where the tangles of cause and effect must be teased out. Forget the CO2. The “climate science” people claim that CO2 is the cause of everything because they couldn’t think of an answer. Hell they can’t even figure out clouds. I remember when they tried and then gave up, too complex to even model, just said that it must be positive. Just how can a cloud add energy to the system. Any farmer, Out standing in his field :-) knows better.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Alan Cheetham, who runs the appinsys site (link left) has a good page on ocean acidification. It includes a quote from a paper no longer linked at the Royal Society.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/OceanAcidification.htm

    “The following figure is from the Royal Society report cited above. It shows a “Map of mixed surface layer (upper 50 m) pH values in the global oceans for the nominal year 1994. The lowest values are observed in upwelling regions (eg Equatorial Pacific, Arabian Sea) where subsurface waters with lower pH values are brought to the surface. The highest values are observed in regions of high biological production and export. In these regions DIC is fixed by phytoplankton and exported by the biological pump into the deeper layers resulting in higher pH values in the surface waters.” If the lowest values are observed where upwelling surface waters are brought to the surface, it indicates that it is not caused by atmospheric CO2, which would have greater effects near the surface. In fact the report states: “In the deep oceans, the CO2 concentration increases as sinking organic matter from biological production (which varies seasonally) is decomposed. These additions of CO2 to the deep oceans cause its pH to decrease … When this CO2-rich deep water upwells to the surface, it creates regions with lower pH in the surface waters”. No atmospheric CO2 required for that.

    As that cold water warms, it is going to release co2. Given the hundreds of years this cycle will take, maybe the current rise in atmospheric co2 is due to the medieval warm period rather than human burning of fossil fuel?

  6. David Middleton says:

    I agree… I think most of the CO2 rise is related to the warm up from the LIA. Dr. van Hoof added another comment on my WUWT post…

    Tom van Hoof says:
    December 28, 2010 at 11:46 pm (Edit)
    @ David Middleton… well actually for the somewhat older stomata data ( I focussed on the past 1000 yrs but my colleages on the whole Holocene) there are Greenland iced-core records which match pretty well… However, we can’t use them for publictions as the ice community officially redrew them as soon as the Antarctic records became available.. they claimed the records are contaminated by too much dust in the ice….

    Furthermore I want to mention that we fully understand there are uncertainties with the stomata data. what bothers me is that for our records the scientific community focusses on these uncertainties in exact prediction while all the flaws and errors in ice data are ignored… furthermore it is quite amusing for me as a biologist to read the papers where physicists try to attack the proxies by playing plant physiologist…. I am very surprised the scientific community does not have a very warm welcome for new innovative techniques when those techniques put question marks at established ideas.., I always learned that these discussions are the fundamental backbone for science… therefore my hope that climate science will ever become a fullgrown scientific discipline is lost as long as politics (read funding) keeps intermingling..

    It appears that the Greenland ice core data support the stomata data; but are being suppressed/withheld.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Hi Dave, season’s greets and many thanks for taking the time to comment here. Those are very interesting comments from Dr Tom van Hoof, I have added them to the main post.

    Ferdinand Englebeen had some calcs on how many ppm of co2 would be released per degree C of temperature increase. Any idea what it is, or how he derives it?

  8. Tim Channon says:

    PGS: Out standing in his field. Ouch, :-)

    TB: from the MWP.

    After MWP going into the ocean during the LIA is now coming back out, quite so but proof, ah. Two viable mechanisms in science is not allowed. The human causal is stated as the one true god but the data does not fit well.

  9. Tenuc says:

    Great post with info which ticks all the correct boxes and is yet another slap in the face by reality for the failing CAGW brigade:)

    Another piece of the puzzle, which you may have seen, is given here on the late, great John Daly site. Paper by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski – Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection Warsaw, Poland… (And if you can get your tongue around the Prof’s name you’re a better man than me!)

    http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

  10. tallbloke says:

    George E Smith writes on WUWT:

    Actually we do have very good data that shows that CO2 is NOT very well mixed in the atmosphere.

    There used to be a graph posted at, http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/Projects/GASES/co2glob.htm

    My copy of that graph is dated 9/19/2005 But since then NOAA seems to have taken it down.

    In any case it refers to Principal investigators Peter Tans, and Thomas Conway, NOAA CMDL. Carbon Cycle Group. Boulder CO (303)497-6678

    So give them a call Joel and ask them for that graph.

    It plots data from about 1987 through 1996 from north pole to south pole. In 1987 the CO2 at the north pole had a peak value of about 355 ppm and a trough value of 340 ppm. A private communique from A Scripps Inst CO2 expert tells me that the actual north pole P-P cycle is 18 ppm. Meanwhile at the south pole shows a value around 347 ppm and the p-p cycle is no more than 1 ppm and is opposite in phase from the north pole cycle; and the south polar lack of any significant CO2 cycling is maintained almost up to 30 deg south, while th4e north polar range is about the same as far south as about +30 degrees. And the time for that 18 ppm drop in CO2 in the arctic, is about five months for the drop, and seven months for the subsequent rise.

    So the local change in CO2 is quite rapid; much faster than a 200 year residence time would be compatible with; yet there is little interchange between north and south polar CO2 variations.

    Now to me that is one of the most striking global assymmetries that I am aware of.

    But then as you well know Joel; the real question, is just how much non-mixing, is significant. I don’t know; I think it is of little significance myself. But then I think the absolute amount of CO2 is also of very little significance.

    I doubt that there are any “Eureka” discoveries in CO2 variance over the planet, and over time; but knowing something about the causality is worth study I believe.
    Of course the Mauna Loa p-p cycle is only 6 ppm; 1/3 of the north polar range.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tenuc,
    Yes, good one to mention at this point. I’ve deployed that URL on Judith Curry’s blog recently too.

  12. Tim Channon says:

    Maybe I should say more about the northern ice CO2 connection.

    The Antarctic is an isolated landmass, circumpolar current, air currents, lot of abnormality. The CO2 annual antiphase is all of the far south.

    A probable null I noticed but the data is poor, South Africa.

    The rest is I think rather interesting. The highest variation is the furthest north.

    The lag between Alaska and MLO is walking pace, just over a month.

    If there is a clue which needs unravelling it is Finnish CO2, inland yet northern, data is slightly different suggesting some vegetative seasonal.

    The usual view is that the abrupt northern CO2 variation is the tundra coming to life. I am not convinced.

    The data processing is quite difficult, many of the datasets are fragmented, ill presented, very noisy and short. I have a variety of intermediate results here, is incomplete work.

    One that might be of interest and took some sweat to produce given the very difficult data shows a typical year, sea ice, snow and CO2.

    Tim-co2

  13. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tim,
    Thanks for the graph. Are the various curves arbitrarily scaled to a fit? I ask because the amplitudes don’t reflect the variation mentioned by George E Smith in my comment above.

    Cheers

  14. Tim Channon says:

    Did that some time ago. Assume scaled.
    This is stuff hanging around here, generally not shown and mistkaes etc. are likely. Probably better to risk ridicule than sitting on it all.

    CO2 data would be from daily. Most of the data has huge holes, one reason why it was difficult to find a common period. I had to push to the limit of what I can do.
    The world gases database is based in Japan, tend to use that for data sources but haven’t given them citation.

  15. Tenuc says:

    Tim Channon says:
    December 29, 2010 at 8:04 pm
    “…The usual view is that the abrupt northern CO2 variation is the tundra coming to life. I am not convinced…”

    Thanks for the graph Tim, which is useful warts and all.

    I suspect their are many factors causing the seasonal changes, and I would suspect the contribution from tundra regrowth to be quite small.

    Came across another useful bit of info on the vertical distribution of CO2 from NASA which shows that concentration is generally high in low altitude and low in high altitude.

    Full paper not available, but abstract here…

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFM.A62B0151W

  16. tallbloke says:

    Seconding Tenuc on all points.
    Tim, I was just clarifying the scaling for consistency with George, it’s a great contribution.
    The vertical distribution makes sense to me, what with co2 being heavier than air and all. :)

  17. Tim Channon says:

    Question: how vegetatively active is the ocean? (cough, errm… the plant life therein)
    I am asking this because it could be a wildcard given the area, moderate temperature, lack of drought unless salinity is an issue, and known browsing critters. Nutrient limitation has been talked about in the press yet I doubt that is the slightest bit different from nutrient limitation in the wild land environment, often severe.

  18. vukcevic says:

    Second Coldest December Ever

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET2.htm

    Update from:

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

    Mean Central England Temperature, 2010
    Month CET Anomaly notes
    December -0.6 -5.3 provisional, to the 29th

  19. Tim Channon says:

    I’ve mentioned the CO2 annual cycle. How constant is that at MLO?

    Very constant and the proof is as follows, data can be provided.

    I developed a model of the MLO hourly data driven by the CDIAC archived dataset over 1958-1986. r2 >0.996

    The model was rebased to monthly for easy compare with current monthly published data and model output for 1958-2010, a 23 year forecast.

    Going from memory here.
    r2 rose to 0.998 and the error extremes over the entire period <+-4ppm arguably +-3ppm dependent on how changes made to the published dataset have been taken into account. The official data after about 1990 has been edited by the data authors (indirectly admitted in the data notes, and absolute proof is easy), proxies used changed (measurements are proxy, direct measurement of CO2 is impossible electronically to the resolution given). This makes the data controversial.

    The annual cycle is closely predicted by the model forecast. Therefore the cycle has little variation.

    Just three model terms closely describes the MLO data, one long period and two for annual. r2 ~ 0.994. The dataset is uninteresting with little material change.

    This is on disk dated June and will do to give an idea, not sure which simulation derivation was used. (tried to find a simple variant, very long story)

    Filenaming suggests I was pointing out data 1987 onwards is forecast.
    Tim-co2 model

    My memory is coming back a little. Notice what happens at the end of the plot. This was amusing. When I first saw this it is Uh oh, not working. I had not looked at the recent CO2 MLO data, the jump Feb 2010 is in the monthly and I had to do the work on monthly to show that was so. I was amused. Seeing that on a 23 year forecast is adequate.

    Something important to notice is the lack of change since 1986, prediction. More or less the "law" has been set by then and human effects either have remained somewhat constant or do not exist.

    I have produced a very close match to the long period term from solar magnetic data, assumed a charm effect (chance) but that is another story.

    The spookiest thing is the difference curve. Is it familiar after Oct 1998? Follows the sunspot curve. This is irrational regardless that some might wish it were so: because it ought to match all along and doesn't. However, that is why I have put a lot of effort into solar magnetic and other non-sunspot datasets, with interesting results.
    There is no final conclusion, just a state of play where over time this is ongoing.

  20. tallbloke says:

    Tim,
    interesting. I just overlaid the oulu Neutron count and the last two solar cycles onto your difference plot.
    GCR_SSN_CO2 DIFF

    What do you think might be happening? Was Keeling factoring in GCR’s and sunspots, then stopped doing it after 1987, creating the difference? Or does your model include GCR’s and sunspots in some way? Can’t get my head round this. Something odd is going on here.

    “The 11yr modulation of cosmic ray flux change (variable for each cycle but a 25 percent amplitude change is quite feasible in the upper atmosphere) is reduced about 75 times in the atmosphere, leaving a 14C change of a couple of [parts] per mil[lion] near the earth surface (e.g. Stuiver and Quay, 1980, Changes in atmospheric carbon-14 attributed to a variable Sun: Science v.207, 11 – 19″

  21. Tim Channon says:

    You get it. The whole thing struck me as strange.

    Critical point, before 1987 the software was curve matching and will be a straight line, just noise.

    Most of what follows is guesswork, unsubstantiated and not taken particularly seriously by me. Neither is it discounted as fantasy. Maybe.

    Going from memory over probably the last 9 months and starting at the CO2 plot you see and the sudden gazing at the screen and twigging why something was familiar, grok sidic.be sunpot data, boggle.

    Use a power law bend (reasonable given they are excitation by something) on the sunspot data, r2 0.8 to >0.9 over Oct 1998 to late 2009 (forget the month). Outside of that is a sharp no match.

    Notice the sidc.be sunspot asymmetry plots and hey ho it looks to be some kind of match. Comes to mind that the effect might be about magnetic polarity.

    http://sidc.oma.be/html/wnosuf.html

    Also of course Hathaway’s butterflies off here

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml

    Hit upon the NASA/Hathaway/Greenwich sunspot dataset and a deviation through to MgII dataset where Leif reported it is faulty.

    The NG data includes latitudinal asymmetry, kind of group, size etc.
    On working with this I discovered the very strong circa 45 year period and that matches tropical heat, sea level. And although not mentioned so far, a very weak modulation of MLO annual, antiphase match sea level. (makes sense is water is involved with CO2) Fun observation here is the match is mostly outside of the data region and in the forecast.

    The MgII raises the question of whether as Leif thinks there is a satellite error or it is real and happens to match the excess loss of arctic sea ice. This started maybe at the start of cycle 23, which is also when the 1998 heat thump occurred. I also wonder whether cycle 23 is actually a kind of double sunspot cycle, with one superimposed on another, hence the split peak and unusual length.

    Recent news is there is abnormality in the solar short wave spectrum, that kind of fits.

    I’ve left this stuff as a puzzle to be prodded occasionally, doing other things. (writing software to do with something else, tools)

  22. Tim Channon says:

    The circa 45 year does not appear as such in the MLO CO2 data.

    The long period wave is circa 192 years, ~200 years which suggests the solar variation in 10Be, cosmic ray flux. If hindcast this agrees with Beck during the 1800s and suggests a minima circa 1947. It cannot of course be a pure wave but extracting that from data 1958 to 1986 is pretty iffy anyway but the match is very close on shape. This is the simplest possible shape and proves predictive to 2010.

    The de vries (and other names) for the 200 year flux seems to have a particular structure and that includes… 45 y. I think it is part of 1ky and probably longer.

    Some quick work on the antarctica 10Be data suggests a modulated 200 year… by 1ky and might match LIA. This is way out guessing.

    Quick check, looks like I made something on that available, if probably incoherent. Say if you do not understand.

    http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/fuji-200.pdf

  23. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tim,
    OK, I’ve played with the Hathaway Greenwich data too, and also have some unfinished investigations with sunspot asymmetry, so we’ll leave this on the ack edge of the stove for now.

    Your PDF is good. I inverted the 10Be plot to get a historical match to temperature to think about:
    10Be-Tim

    The Sporer minimum is not so pronounced in other proxies from other regions. Maybe this is what drove the Vikings out of Greenland?

    The de Vries cycle is a vague thing, as you are hinting, it may be the product of several longer cycles, hence it’s varying intensity and timing.

  24. Tim Channon says:

    Wasn’t expecting that. I’d only looked at it as a senseless wiggle, suggesting a 1k year modulation.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Could be ~925 year modulation – Jupiter related.

  26. Tim Channon says:

    My pure guess is radiation modulation as a result of solar system magnetics.

    This one can play out to do with planet positions.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Happy New Year Tim. :)

  28. Tim Channon says:

    A good new year to everyone.

  29. Tenuc says:

    Good match to Tim’s wiggle Roger – got to be more than chance. If only we could unravel the mesh of overlapping short/medium/long quasi-cycles perhaps we could make more sense of how weather regimes can change.

    Using global average temperature as a diagnostic of climate is a futile endeavour as it is the actual amount of energy received/used/stored/ejected at any given location on Earth at any given time which is diagnostic of whether the globe is moving towards the warm or cold strange attractor. We need to bite the bullet and get to grips with the deterministic chaos which produces the periods of order and chaos we observe.

    An added complication is that the way climate operates changes dependant on the amount of energy because of MEP. My gut feeling is that the release of energy at the North Pole is cooling our planet and is a sign that the 21st century will be colder than the previous one.

    Wishing all the best to the posters on this forum and our host Roger for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2011.

  30. tallbloke says:

    Cheers Tenuc, and the same to you. Your insightful comment is always welcome here.

  31. Tim Channon says:

    Guessing, there has been a gradual temperature shift from south to north.

    I suspect this is cyclic, possibly on the circa 45 year period.

    A shift back again is what I am expecting. The alternate of continuing shift is unreasonable, would be obvious in history.

    A snippet I recently came across was in the first paper available of a well known US warmist. Was published 1972, showing how there was an agenda.

    As it happens it lets out some keys. Says the Arctic location is good for long term climatic monitoring and

    photograpic images show snow cover in 1949 was more
    snow cover in 1960 was less
    snow cover increased over a decade [to 1970]

    This fits with increasing snow cover to at least 1970 and today I assume there has been shrinkage again. We have 20 years, likely at least 30 years of increase and now perhaps 20 years of shrink.

    I haven’t looked for evidence of the temperature tilt shown in the satellite record but in the land record. If it can be unearthed it might be useful. Finding good stations is the problem.

  32. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tim,
    I think this is why Richard Holle’s proposed video project is so worthwhile. It should give a better overview of the shift. The thing is, there are a couple of natural ‘internal’ oscillations, plus a solar influenced oscillation. This confuses the picture.

    ~45 year planetary
    ~70 year lunar
    ~90 year solar

    Maybe.

    Ray Tomes is the man for disentangling multiple cycles. I’ll get back in touch with him for some advice on this.

  33. Tenuc says:

    The phase of each of the different quasi-cycles also has an effect on outcomes and how peaks and troughs reinforce or counter each other.

    It is interesting that the ~70y lunar cycle seems to link to the ‘precession of the equinoxes’ (precession of Earth’s axis of rotation with respect to inertial space). It takes ~25,770 years for a complete 360 degrees precession cycle and 25770/360~71y.

  34. David says:

    “In the deep oceans, the CO2 concentration increases as sinking organic matter from biological production (which varies seasonally) is decomposed.”

    Does it make sense to assume that “ocean snow” varies not just seasonally, but on much longer cycles from solar variations? Has anyone placed numbers on how much energy goes into ocean blooms during favorable conditions? How thick is the ocean snow on the sea floor, and does it generate heat in its decomposition?

    Thanks in advance and happy new year.

  35. tallbloke says:

    Hi David, and Happy New Year to you.
    The variation in plankton abundance is hard to quantify or account for. Fish stocks give some indication, since plankton are at the base of the food chain. There seems to be a ~60 year cycle in the abundance of several fish species caught for human consumption. But this could be partly due to a migratory pattern associated with oceanic cycles.

    The heat of decomposition I would think is negligible compared heat absorbed in the oceans as a result of variations in the solar flux and cloud cover.

  36. @tallbloke says:
    January 2, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    There is a close relation with LOD. Look at the graph, in …08.pdf, page 50th:
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    Also:

    http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf

    klyashtorin@mtu-net.ru

  37. Tim Channon says:

    TB: “I think this is why Richard Holle’s proposed video project is so worthwhile.”

    What is that?