Climate Change - How the world need to address!

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by NSG_Blackcats, Nov 28, 2009.

  1. NSG_Blackcats

    NSG_Blackcats Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Location:
    Delhi
    Climate change is a major issue we are facing today. Some of the major reasons for climate change is -

    •Rapid Industrialization in developing nation.
    •Green house gas emission by majority of the developed nations as well as developing nations.
    •Deforestation.
    •Rise in Concrete structure and glass structures.
    •Irresponsible lifestyle.

    Now there are serious differences between developing and developed world regarding how to cut green house gas emission. The developing world is led by the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China). India is not ready to take any legally binding emission cuts. The amount of green house gas emission by China is 20 times than India.

    Members are requested to debates the issues related to Climate Change and how it is affecting our Planet.

    Regards
     
  2.  
  3. NSG_Blackcats

    NSG_Blackcats Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Location:
    Delhi
    What is Climate Change?​


    Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcing, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

    The Earth is the only planet in our solar system that supports life. The complex process of evolution occurred on Earth only because of some unique environmental conditions that were present: water, an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and a suitable surface temperature.

    Mercury and Venus, the two planets that lie between Earth and the sun, do not support life. This is because Mercury has no atmosphere and therefore becomes very hot during the day, while temperatures at night may reach -140 ºC. Venus, has a thick atmosphere which traps more heat than it allows to escape, making it too hot (between 150 and 450 ºC) to sustain life.

    Only the Earth has an atmosphere of the proper depth and chemical composition. About 30% of incoming energy from the sun is reflected back to space while the rest reaches the earth, warming the air, oceans, and land, and maintaining an average surface temperature of about 15 ºC.

    The chemical composition of the atmosphere is also responsible for nurturing life on our planet. Most of it is nitrogen (78%); about 21% is oxygen, which all animals need to survive; and only a small percentage (0.036%) is made up of carbon dioxide which plants require for photosynthesis.

    The atmosphere carries out the critical function of maintaining life-sustaining conditions on Earth, in the following way: each day, energy from the sun (largely in the visible part of the spectrum, but also some in the ultraviolet and infra red portions) is absorbed by the land, seas, mountains, etc. If all this energy were to be absorbed completely, the earth would gradually become hotter and hotter. But actually, the earth both absorbs and, simultaneously releases it in the form of infra red waves (which cannot be seen by our eyes but can be felt as heat, for example the heat that you can feel with your hands over a heated car engine). All this rising heat is not lost to space, but is partly absorbed by some gases present in very small (or trace) quantities in the atmosphere, called GHGs (greenhouse gases).

    Greenhouse gases (for example, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour, ozone), re-emit some of this heat to the earth's surface. If they did not perform this useful function, most of the heat energy would escape, leaving the earth cold (about -18 ºC) and unfit to support life.

    However, ever since the Industrial Revolution began about 150 years ago, man-made activities have added significant quantities of GHGs to the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have grown by about 31%, 151% and 17%, respectively, between 1750 and 2000 (IPCC 2001).

    Source
     
  4. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    some stuff on sea level rise

    HowStuffWorks "If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?"

    see the effect on India after sea levels rise here

    Flood Maps
     
  5. NSG_Blackcats

    NSG_Blackcats Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Location:
    Delhi
    Vulnerability and Adaptation​


    Vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.

    Severe storms, floods and droughts since the eighties have served as reminders that climate change is a global problem. The most dramatic change has been in the temperature, with measurement records suggesting that warming by 0.3-0.6 °C has already taken place since the 1860s. The last two decades of the 20th century were the warmest in this period.

    Over the next hundred years, the earth's surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C which will be greater than that experienced over the last 10 000 years.

    Climate changes have occurred in the past, but always gradually, over thousands of years, giving ecosystems time to adapt. The rapid change that is currently taking place will leave ecosystems vulnerable. The large quantities of water locked in the polar ice caps and glaciers will be released as a consequence of warming. This, together with an increase in the thermal expansion of the oceans, will make the global mean sea level rise by 9 cm to 88 cm.

    The river Ganga originates in the Himalayas, and is fed by several glaciers. The Gangotri is the longest of these, at 26 km, but there are hundreds of smaller ones, too. One of these is the Dokriani Bamak which is 5 km long and has a permanent research station at its base. Scientists studying this glacier have found that it has been retreating at a rate of 20 m a year compared to about 16 m per year in the past.
    If the present trend continues, then over the next 25 years, the Ganga could initially swell in volume because of increased melting but then dry out as the water supply in the mountains runs low. This will endanger the lives of about 400 million people who live in the river's plains and depend upon it for their supply of water.

    The effects of global warming are difficult to quantify because of the complicated relationships between air temperature, precipitation quantity and pattern, vegetative cover and soil moisture. However, it is likely that the frequency, intensity and duration of storms and other extreme weather events could increase.

    More from the source
     
  6. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    interesting read.

    Climate change: Menace or myth?

    12 February 2005 by Fred Pearce

    ON 16 FEBRUARY, the Kyoto protocol comes into force. Whether you see this as a triumph of international cooperation or a case of too little, too late, there is no doubt that it was only made possible by decades of dedicated work by climate scientists. Yet as these same researchers celebrate their most notable achievement, their work is being denigrated as never before.

    The hostile criticism is coming from sceptics who question the reality of climate change. Critics have always been around, but in recent months their voices have become increasingly prominent and influential. One British newspaper called climate change a "global fraud" based on "left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology". A London-based think tank described the UK's chief scientific adviser, David King, as "an embarrassment" for believing that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And the bestselling author Michael Crichton, in his much publicised new novel State of Fear, portrays global warming as an evil plot perpetrated by environmental extremists.

    If the sceptics are to be believed, the evidence for global warming is full of holes and the field is riven with argument and uncertainty. The apparent scientific consensus over global warming only exists, they say, because it is enforced by a scientific establishment riding the gravy train, aided and abetted by governments keen to play the politics of fear. It's easy to dismiss such claims as politically motivated and with no basis in fact - especially as the majority of sceptics are economists, business people or politicians, not scientists (see "Meet the sceptics"). But there are nagging doubts. Could the sceptics be onto something? Are we, after all, being taken for a ride?

    This is perhaps the most crucial scientific question of the 21st century. The winning side in the climate debate will shape economic, political and technological developments for years, even centuries, to come. With so much at stake, it is crucial that the right side wins. But which side is right? What is the evidence that human activity is warming the world, and how reliable is it?

    First, the basic physics. It is beyond doubt that certain gases in the atmosphere, most importantly water vapour and carbon dioxide, trap infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface and so have a greenhouse effect. This in itself is no bad thing. Indeed, without them the planet would freeze. There is also no doubt that human activity is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and that this has caused a sustained year-on-year rise in CO2 concentrations. For almost 60 years, measurements at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii have charted this rise, and it is largely uncontested that today's concentrations are about 35 per cent above pre-industrial levels (see Graph).

    [​IMG]

    The effect this has on the planet is also measurable. In 2000, researchers based at Imperial College London examined satellite data covering almost three decades to plot changes in the amount of infrared radiation escaping from the atmosphere into space - an indirect measure of how much heat is being trapped. In the part of the infrared spectrum trapped by CO2 - wavelengths between 13 and 19 micrometres - they found that between 1970 and 1997 less and less radiation was escaping. They concluded that the increasing quantity of atmospheric CO2 was trapping energy that used to escape, and storing it in the atmosphere as heat. The results for the other greenhouse gases were similar.

    These uncontested facts are enough to establish that "anthropogenic" greenhouse gas emissions are tending to make the atmosphere warmer. What's more, there is little doubt that the climate is changing right now. Temperature records from around the world going back 150 years suggest that 19 of the 20 warmest years - measured in terms of average global temperature, which takes account of all available thermometer data - have occurred since 1980, and that four of these occurred in the past seven years (see Graph).

    The only serious question mark over this record is the possibility that measurements have been biased by the growth of cities near the sites where temperatures are measured, as cities retain more heat than rural areas. But some new research suggests there is no such bias. David Parker of the UK's Met Office divided the historical temperature data into two sets: one taken in calm weather and the other in windy weather. He reasoned that any effect due to nearby cities would be more pronounced in calm conditions, when the wind could not disperse the heat. There was no difference.

    It is at this point, however, that uncertainty starts to creep in. Take the grand claim made by some climate researchers that the 1990s were the warmest decade in the warmest century of the past millennium. This claim is embodied in the famous "hockey stick" curve, produced by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia in 1998, based on "proxy" records of past temperature, such as air bubbles in ice cores and growth rings in tree and coral. (see "Hotly contested") Sceptics have attacked the findings over poor methodology used, and their criticism has been confirmed by climate modellers, who have recently recognised that such proxy studies systematically underestimate past variability. As one Met Office scientist put it: "We cannot make claims as to the 1990s being the warmest decade."

    There is also room for uncertainty in inferences drawn from the rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The warming itself is real enough, but that doesn't necessarily mean that human activity is to blame. Sceptics say that the warming could be natural, and again they have a point. It is now recognised that up to 40 per cent of the climatic variation since 1890 is probably due to two natural phenomena. The first is solar cycles, which influence the amount of radiation reaching the Earth, and some scientist have argued that increased solar activity can account for most of the warming of the past 150 years. The second is the changing frequency of volcanic eruptions, which produce airborne particles that can shade and hence cool the planet for a year or more. This does not mean, however, that the sceptics can claim victory, as no known natural effects can explain the 0.5 °C warming seen in the past 30 years. In fact, natural changes alone would have caused a marginal global cooling (see Graph).
    Natural changes alone would have caused a marginal global cooling in the past 30 years
    How hot will it get?

    In the face of such evidence, the vast majority of scientists, even sceptical ones, now agree that our activities are making the planet warmer, and that we can expect more warming as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere. This leaves two critical questions. How much warming can we expect? And how much should we care about it? Here the uncertainties begin in earnest.

    The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now stands at around 375 parts per million. A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million, which could happen as early as 2050, will add only about 1 °C to average global temperatures, other things being equal. But if there's one thing we can count on, it is that other things will not be equal; some important things will change.

    All experts agree that the planet is likely to respond in a variety of ways, some of which will dampen down the warming (negative feedback) while others will amplify it (positive feedback). Assessing the impacts of these feedbacks has been a central task of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a co-operative agency set up 17 years ago that has harnessed the work of thousands of scientists. Having spent countless hours of supercomputer time creating and refining models to simulate the planet's climate system, the IPCC concludes that the feedbacks will be overwhelmingly positive. The only question, it says, is just how big this positive feedback will be.

    The latest IPCC assessment is that doubling CO2 levels will warm the world by anything from 1.4 to 5.8 °C. In other words, this predicts a rise in global temperature from pre-industrial levels of around 14.8 °C to between 16.2 and 20.6 °C. Even at the low end, this is probably the biggest fluctuation in temperature that has occurred in the history of human civilisation. But uncertainties within the IPCC models remain, and the sceptics charge that they are so great that this conclusion is not worth the paper it is written on. So what are the positive feedbacks and how much uncertainty surrounds them?

    Melting of polar ice is almost certainly one. Where the ice melts, the new, darker surface absorbs more heat from the sun, and so warms the planet. This is already happening. The second major source of positive feedback is water vapour. As this is responsible for a bigger slice of today's greenhouse effect than any other gas, including CO2, any change in the amount of moisture in the atmosphere is critical. A warmer world will evaporate more water from the oceans, giving an extra push to warming. But there is a complication. Some of the water vapour will turn to cloud, and the net effect of cloudier skies on heat coming in and going out is far from clear. Clouds reflect energy from the sun back into space, but they also trap heat radiated from the surface, especially at night. Whether warming or cooling predominates depends on the type and height of clouds. The IPCC calculates that the combined effect of extra water vapour and clouds will increase warming, but accepts that clouds are the biggest source of uncertainty in the models.

    Sceptics who pounce on such uncertainties should remember, however, that they cut both ways. Indeed, new research based on thousands of different climate simulation models run using the spare computing capacity of idling PCs, suggest that doubling CO2 levels could increase temperatures by as much as 11 °C (Nature, vol 434, p 403).

    Recent analysis suggests that clouds could have a more powerful warming effect than once thought - possibly much more powerful (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 44). And there could be other surprise positive feedbacks that do not yet feature in the climate models. For instance, a release of some of the huge quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that are frozen into the Siberian permafrost and the ocean floor could have a catastrophic warming effect. And an end to ice formation in the Arctic could upset ocean currents and even shut down the Gulf Stream - the starting point for the blockbuster movie The Day After Tomorrow.

    There are counterbalancing negative feedbacks, some of which are already in the models. These include the ability of the oceans to absorb heat from the atmosphere, and of some pollutants - such as the sulphate particles that make acid rain - to shade the planet. But both are double-edged. The models predict that the ocean's ability to absorb heat will decline as the surface warms, as mixing between less dense, warm surface waters and the denser cold depths becomes more difficult. Meanwhile, sulphate and other aerosols could already be masking far stronger underlying warming effects than are apparent from measured temperatures. Aerosols last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, while greenhouse gases last for decades. So efforts to cut pollution by using technologies such as scrubbers to remove sulphur dioxide from power station stacks could trigger a surge in temperatures.
    Efforts to cut aerosol pollution could trigger a surge in temperatures

    Sceptics also like to point out that most models do not yet include negative feedback from vegetation, which is already growing faster in a warmer world, and soaking up more CO2. But here they may be onto a loser, as the few climate models so far to include plants show that continued climate change is likely to damage their ability to absorb CO2, potentially turning a negative feedback into a positive one.
    Achilles' heel?

    More credible is the suggestion that some other important negative feedbacks have been left out. One prominent sceptic, meteorologist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has made an interesting case that warming may dry out the upper levels of the innermost atmospheric layer, the troposphere, and less water means a weaker greenhouse effect. Lindzen, who is one of the few sceptics with a research track record that most climate scientists respect, says this drying effect could negate all the positive feedbacks and bring the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 levels back to 1 °C. While there is little data to back up his idea, some studies suggest that these outer reaches are not as warm as IPCC models predict (see "Areas of contention). This could be a mere wrinkle in the models or something more important. But if catastrophists have an Achilles' heel, this could be it.

    Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

    Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept that we can expect some warming. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC's scale

    For the true hard-liners, of course, the scientific consensus must, by definition, be wrong. As far as they are concerned the thousands of scientists behind the IPCC models have either been seduced by their own doom-laden narrative or are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy. They say we are faced with what the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm problem".

    "Most scientists spend their lives working to shore up the reigning world view - the dominant paradigm - and those who disagree are always much fewer in number," says climatologist Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, a leading proponent of this view. The drive to conformity is accentuated by peer review, which ensures that only papers in support of the paradigm appear in the literature, Michaels says, and by public funding that gives money to research into the prevailing "paradigm of doom". Rebels who challenge prevailing orthodoxies are often proved right, he adds.

    But even if you accept this sceptical view of how science is done, it doesn't mean the orthodoxy is always wrong. We know for sure that human activity is influencing the global environment, even if we don't know by how much. We might still get away with it: the sceptics could be right, and the majority of the world's climate scientists wrong. It would be a lucky break. But how lucky do you feel?

    Climate change: Menace or myth? - environment - 12 February 2005 - New Scientist
     
  7. NSG_Blackcats

    NSG_Blackcats Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Location:
    Delhi
    International Negotiation

    As public concern about changes in the world's climate mounted in the 1980s, the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) and the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) established the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 1988 to assess the seriousness of the problem. The First Assessment Report of the IPCC, completed in 1990, highlighted the global threat of climate change.

    In December 1990, the UN General Assembly decided to launch negotiations on what was to become the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The negotiations commenced in February 1991 and were concluded in 15 months. The Convention was adopted in May 1992, and opened for signature in Rio at the UN Conference on Environment and Development. It came into force in March, 1994 after being ratified by 50 countries.

    UNFCCC's objective

    The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

    Source
     
  8. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    India may have been rather hasty in joining others in announcing the voluntary emission cuts.India could atleast have held its quill long enough to allow the satisfactory conclusion of civilian nuclear energy agreements,which is pending with several countries esp key western countries.

    Its no secret that one of the principle reason that motivated the previous Bush administration to work out the civilian nuclear agreement with India,was India's reluctance to enter into any binding emission cut agreements until its demand for international cooperation on the nuclear energy generation,without compromising its right to retain the strategic nuclear programme,was accommodated.While Most of India's demand have been more or less realized, but there is still some pending issues which mandates that India hold on to its emission cut reigns just yet.

    Nuclear power will be One of India's key technology shift in bringing down global warming,however it should be pertinent to note that India does not make any premature move that would relinquish this leverage that we have over many key strategic issues.
     
  9. NSG_Blackcats

    NSG_Blackcats Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Location:
    Delhi
    There would be disastrous effect of climate change on India. So how can climate change affect India? These are the following effect of climate change on India –

    •There will be decrease in snow cover in the glaciers in Himalayan region. So it will affect the water level in two of India’s biggest river the Ganges and Brahmaputra.

    •Extreme temperatures and heat spells could alter patterns of monsoon rains, vital for India's agriculture and water needs. The monsoon accounts for almost 70 percent of the country's total annual rainfall. So a bad monsoon will bring disaster for India.

    •There may be a shift in timing and cycle of rainfall. We may see a delayed monsoon like we have faced this year. So it will have its effect on our agriculture productivity.

    •Drop in wheat production by 4-5 million tones with even a 1 degree C rise in temperature.

    •There may be increase in frequency and intensity of floods in India. The recent floods in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh are an example of it.

    •A 10-year study in and around the Bay of Bengal points to the sea rising 3.14 mm a year in the mangrove swamps of the Sunderbans delta against a global average of 2 mm, threatening the low-lying area which is home to about 4 million people.

    •Rise in temperature and change in humidity will adversely affect human health in India. Heat stress could result in heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke and weaken immune systems.
     
  10. NSG_Blackcats

    NSG_Blackcats Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Location:
    Delhi
    Which country is the largest source of global warming pollution?

    The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, it produces 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined.

    Is global warming making hurricanes worse?

    Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm. In fact, scientists have found that the destructive potential of hurricanes has greatly increased along with ocean temperature over the past 35 years.

    Is it possible to cut power plant pollution and still have enough electricity?

    Yes. First, we must use more efficient appliances and equipment in our homes and offices to reduce our electricity needs. We can also phase out the decades-old, coal-burning power plants that generate most of our electricity and replace them with cleaner plants. And we can increase our use of renewable energy sources such as wind and sun.

    But the question is – from where developing countries like India will get the funds to make huge investments in renewable energy.
     
  11. NSG_Blackcats

    NSG_Blackcats Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Location:
    Delhi
    A study on India and GHG emission​


    India’s per capita GHG emission till 2030

    The projections range from 2.77 tons/capita CO2 (NCAER- with Jadavpur University) to 5.0 tons/capita CO2 (TERI- Poznan). All studies indicate that India’s per capita GHG emissions in 2030 will be below the 2005 global average of 4.22 tons!

    India’s Aggregate GHG emissions till 2030

    The projections range from 4.0 billion tons CO2 (NCAER-CGE) to 7.3 billion tons (TERI- Poznan)

    =>India’s energy intensity (Energy Consumption per GDP - is the amount of primary energy used per unit of income generated by a country's economy.) has declined continuously since 1990. At present it is better than Germany’s.

    =>The fossil fuel CO2 intensity of the Indian economy in 2004 was the same as Japan and better than Germany.

    For Details of the study read the PDF
     
  12. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    In this context I am just quoting this report of our which has the report of our Hon'ble MoS for Environment and Forest Jairam Ramesh's comments , the links are provided :

    India not to sign legally binding emission agreement - India - The Times of India

    I think as NSG says , we must look for alternative energy eg renewable energy sources , such as Solar power , may be use of solar cooker be promoted in a great way or use solar power for electricity generation or bio gas , and on the other hand we have upper hand in the terms for negotiation if the developed nations lead by the USA opts for negotiation.

    Regards
     
  13. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    Now what the scientists have to say.

     

Share This Page