backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Mar 30 at 5:59 PM


  (Source: img.wendmag.com)
Study blames human activity for climate change

NASA and international university researchers claim that humans have thrown off the balance between the Earth's rotation, surface air temperatures and movements in its molten core through our contribution of greenhouse gases.

Those included in the study were Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, along with Olivier de Viron, from the Universite Paris Diderot and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris in France.

It is well known that an Earth day consists of 24 hours, which is the time it takes for the Earth to make one full rotation. Over a year's time, seasonal changes occur due to energy exchanges between fluid motions of the Earth's atmosphere, the oceans and solid Earth itself, which changes the length of a day by about 1 millisecond. In addition, the length of a day on Earth can vary over longer timescales such as interannual timescales (two to 10 years) or decadal timescales (10 years).

But Earth’s oceans or motions of its atmosphere cannot explain the variances in the length of day over longer timescales. Instead, longer fluctuations are explained by the flow of liquid iron within Earth's outer core, which interacts with the mantle to determine Earth's rotation. This is also where the Earth's magnetic field originates, and because researchers cannot observe the flows of liquid iron directly, the magnetic field is observed at the surface.  

Studies have shown that this liquid iron "oscillates in waves of motion that last for decades," and have timescales that resemble long fluctuations in Earth's day length. At the same time, other studies have shown that long variations in Earth's day length are closely related to fluctuations in Earth's average surface air temperature. 

In this study, the NASA/university team of researchers has linked Earth's rotation, surface air temperatures and the movement in its molten core. They did this by mapping existing data on yearly length-of-day observations and fluid movements within Earth's core against "two time series of annual global average surface temperature." One dated back to 1880 from NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, and the other dated back to 1860 from the United Kingdom's Met Office.  

According to the study, temperature changes not only occur naturally, but are also affected by human activities. So researchers used computer climate models of Earth's oceans and atmosphere to generate changes made by humans. Then, these temperature changes caused by human activities were removed from the overall total observed temperature records. What they found was that old temperature data coordinated with data on Earth's day length and movements of its core until 1930, but after that, surface air temperatures increased without corresponding changes in movements of the core or day length. According to the study, this deviation after 1930 is linked to increased levels of the human contribution of greenhouse gases.  

But the new temperature data that the researchers generated (which subtracted human activity from the equation) had a temperature record that coordinated with Earth's core movements and day length, showing how human activity has thrown the Earth's climate off balance. 

"The solid Earth plays a role, but the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands," said Dickey. 

Dickey is unsure as to why these three variables correlate, but hypothesized that Earth's core movements might interfere with the magnetic fielding of charged particle fluxes, which may affect cloud formation. This affects how much sunlight the Earth absorbs and how much is reflected back into space. 

"Our research demonstrates that, for the past 160 years, decadal and longer-period changes in atmospheric temperature correspond to changes in Earth's length of day if we remove the very significant effect of atmospheric warming attributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases due to mankind's enterprise," said Dickey. "Our study implies that human influences on climate during the past 80 years mask the natural balance that exists among Earth's rotation, the core's angular momentum and the temperature at Earth's surface." 

This study was published in the Journal of Climate.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By flybefree on 3/14/2011 2:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
So wait, they have no idea why "these three variables correlate", or in other words, they have no hypothesis about this proposed mechanism, so it must be caused by humans? This does not sound like the scientific method ...




By docawolff on 3/14/2011 2:24:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Dickey is unsure as to why these three variables correlate, but hypothesized that Earth's core movements might interfere with the magnetic fielding of charged particle fluxes, which may affect cloud formation. This affects how much sunlight the Earth absorbs and how much is reflected back into space.


Not exactly "no idea..." and not exactly "no hypothesis..."


By Schrag4 on 3/14/2011 2:33:22 PM , Rating: 1
Yes but the impression I got when reading this was that the study used the assumption that humans caused change to prove that humans caused change. Did the article read this way for anyone else? Maybe it's just me...


By kattanna on 3/14/2011 3:51:26 PM , Rating: 1
yep!

starting off with blame didnt seem overly professional to me.

but im not sure if it came from the actual study paper, or the person who actually wrote the article at science daily, which tiff just about copied word for word

the papers abstract doesnt have that blame up front

on another note: i do find it interesting that they managed to find earth based cycles affecting climate. that to me was the real news that is getting lost in the "blame game"


By phxfreddy on 3/14/2011 5:40:09 PM , Rating: 3
Responsible Environmentalist Terrans Against Reprehensible Debacles

Won't you please join??? Don't be a denier!


By JediJeb on 3/14/2011 9:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
This group probably also supports PETA since cow farts are a major cause of global warming. Please support People for the Eating of Tasty Animals, it will help us alleviate this very serious problem. PETA, saving the planet one burger at a time.


By Divineburner on 3/14/2011 6:49:20 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. That's what I thought when I read this article too.

However,

When I read the abstract of the paper in question ( I have no subscription), I see nothing that means even close to what this article is implying.

Quoting from the extract:
quote:
It is shown here that 1) the correlation among these three quantities exists until 1930, at which time anthropogenic forcing becomes highly significant; 2) correcting for anthropogenic effects, the correlation is present for the full span...

Yes, a correlation after anthropogenic factors are removed.

As well as the final sentence of the abstract:
quote:
In all three cases, their signals would be much smaller than the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect on Earth’s radiation budget during the coming century.

Which obviously states that man made global warming outweigh the effects from Earth's core and Length of Day.

This paper checks the Length of the Day, Surface Average Temperature and Core Angular Momentum, and discovers a curious correlation that need to be addressed in further studies. This is nothing out of ordinary. You first find a phenomenon, then you attempt to explain it.

It's people like that author of this "news" (read: Tiffany Kaiser) that intentionally mislead the reader as to the original intent of the article and gives science a bad light.


By geddarkstorm on 3/14/2011 5:10:42 PM , Rating: 3
No, that's speculation, no matter what they want to call that, it's pure hand waving and conjecture. There is no friggin way the surface temperature of Earth, within the range of natural variability, is going to affect rotational speed.

However, what about the other way around? What about the frictional heat generated by the core and the mantle? Might THAT affect surface temperature of the Earth? Wouldn't that not only make senses, but follow the laws of physics that the other way would likely be breaking?

What makes more sense?


By Lexda on 3/15/2011 11:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me again why you believe "there's no friggin' way?" If you're trying to show an aura of competence regarding science, you're doing it wrong. I mean, personally, there's no friggin' way a bowling ball and a golf ball will fall at the same rates; it just doesn't make sense!

"The greatest words ever uttered by a scientist aren't 'Eureka!" but rather, 'Now that's funny...'"

Science isn't about proclaiming "But that's impossible!" It's about figuring out why something we previously thought was impossible actually occurs.


By geddarkstorm on 3/15/2011 5:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
They have absolutely no mechanism. Nor is there any mechanism in physics I know of. Perhaps I'm wrong, but think about heat transfer for a minute and spin dynamics between a solid and a fluid. Then look at the orders of magnitude difference between small fluctuations of 10C on the surface of the planet between the mass and temperature of the core/mantle.

Use your head for a second.

Now, what about the other direction? Could changes in the MASSIVE core of our planet rubbing against the MASSIVE mantle, affect within a few tenths of a degree C the temperature of the surface? Think for a minute, and do some empirical experiments of your own instead of of just swallowing whatever you're spoon fed.

As to your example, empirical evidence quickly showed they did fall at the same rate, nor was there no obvious violation of physics that would preclude them to do so, or any opposite, and far more likely mechanism. So don't go spouting off cliches without actually thinking about the issue.


By Lexda on 3/15/2011 6:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not trying to offer an explanation. I'm simply noting that all of my scientific training has taught me to not discard something simply because it doesn't meet my preconceptions.


By RedemptionAD on 3/16/2011 1:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
The law of probability says that nothing is impossable. It's just a matter of is it probable. No exceptions.


By geddarkstorm on 3/17/2011 1:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
And scientific training says outlandish speculation requires outlandish proof before it's anything more than. Or, that to be science in the first place, it must be testable. There's nothing testable about this, so it can't even be considered science. On the other hand, what we do know of physics contradicts this.

Could it be real? As the other person who replied to you said, of course; and our overarching theories get modified and changed by discoveries every year. But probable? No way. So should we freak out and start talking about this as if it were fact? NO. And that's where the danger lies, and that's where rationality needs to step in and put on the breaks.


By flybefree on 3/15/2011 2:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
He's basically saying "I have no idea how this this works", but how about this wild guess, and so obviously, humans are causing the Earth to stop rotating. QED.

quote:
So researchers used computer climate models of Earth's oceans and atmosphere to generate changes made by humans.


This sounds like a large leap to me, as this is a part that is highly debatable. Reminds me of this: http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/wp-content/uploa...

They're fabricating out of thin air what they think is different in the last 80 years since 1930 based on data from only the past 150 years, arbitrary deciding what they consider "normal", then saying since the first 70 years are normal, the next 80 years must be human-caused abnormality. Sounds ridiculous to me.


By kfonda on 3/14/2011 4:23:23 PM , Rating: 4
You need to use the Ancient Monty Python Logic algorithm to make it work.

like this....

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!


By TSS on 3/14/2011 4:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Really there's no monthy python sketch to describe the sillyness of our modern world. Each time they come close Graham Chapman would come into view as the colonel and go "Stop that! Stop that! it's silly!".

Although if i'd had to pick i'd go with the fish slapping sketch....


By Alexvrb on 3/14/2011 11:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Or the Permanent Assurance Company.


By Arsynic on 3/15/2011 3:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
These people believe that the universe was "created" out of chaos and that humans are a mistake. When we're viewed as a mistake, every little thing seen as a problem is our fault.

A better explanation is that NASA is strapped for cash with Obama allocating their budget for improving Muslim relations, they'll take any scientific funding they can get, even if they have to worship at the altar of Anthropogenic Global Warming to do that.

If I were studying the mating habits of rainforest squirrels in Paraguay and had a hard time finding grants, I would resubmit my application with the title "The effect of climate change on the mating habits of the rainforest squirrels" and the check would be in the mail.


Here we go again.
By drycrust3 on 3/14/2011 2:47:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One dated back to 1880 from NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, and the other dated back to 1860 from the United Kingdom's Met Office.

The "Climategate" emails from the Climate Research Unit at the East Anglia University show they were changing the temperatures to suit themselves. Now people are trying to use that data for scientific research, and we don't know if the data they are using is credible or not.

As an aside, Einstein's theory of Relativity was used to explain the orbit of Mercury. I don't know what was unusual about Mercury's orbit, but if Mercury was behaving in a manner that wasn't according to Newtonian Law, then it stands to reason that maybe Earth is also behaving in a similar manner.




RE: Here we go again.
By cdwilliams1 on 3/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Here we go again.
By drycrust3 on 3/14/2011 7:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
My thanks for the links.

My apologies to anyone I have offended by using the "Climategate" allegations.


RE: Here we go again.
By Belard on 3/15/2011 3:47:27 AM , Rating: 1
It doesn't offend anyone...

But learning from your mistakes is good for you, shows you have the ability to think.

There are people out there who don't understand how the tides go in and out, they maybe stupid enough to think the Sun goes around the Earth.

(Silly, everyone knows the Sun orbits the Moon)


RE: Here we go again.
By SPOOFE on 3/15/2011 1:24:23 AM , Rating: 5
"In his report, British civil servant Sir Muir Russell found that the climategate e-mails don't undermine the basic science behind man-made global warming."

The "exoneration" found only that A: the scientists involved couldn't be charged with a crime (probably because the statute of limitations on the violations of FoI had run out) and B: that the E-mails don't disprove anthropogenic global warming.

However, the "exoneration" also points out a wide swath of errors and flaws that, while not criminal, certainly don't speak well of the scientists in question.

But most importantly: The review did NOT examine their work. At all. Their work is still suspect. Their work is still just a bunch of claims from a bunch of grumpy guys that like steady paychecks. Their "exoneration" is only from irrelevant accusations; every real criticism of the CRU, based on the Climategate E-mails, stands.


RE: Here we go again.
By KIAman on 3/14/2011 3:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
As another aside, we still can't explain why the surface of the sun (photosphere) is a relatively cool 5,500C while the portion of the corona furthest away from the sun is 2,000,000C!!!

The point is that scientists have to be more careful about how they communicate their research and their findings. Reading this article leads me to believe that some objectivity has been thrown out the window and the vast amounts of unknowns are given only a slight mention.


RE: Here we go again.
By Azethoth on 3/14/2011 10:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, join some organization (any, not just a scientific one) then wait till a journalist does a story on it. Wow shocking: the journalist gets a lot of it totally wrong. This is simply the nature of reporting by someone on a topic they are not intimately familiar with. This will never change.

Now if you want to know what is going on, go read the sources. So for example the next time you read that substance X has been found to be Good / Bad for you, instead of gorging on it / stopping using it, go read the sources and make up your mind. Chances are more research is needed.

The point is, the scientific papers are quite specific and careful, but the journalism has no such requirement. In fact, the journalism usually needs sensationalism. So please blame the translator.


RE: Here we go again.
By Lexda on 3/15/2011 11:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
Please tell me that's sarcasm? My high school physics course was able to explain that to me.


Something curious here.
By JediJeb on 3/14/2011 3:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Scientists have long known that the length of an Earth day -- the time it takes for Earth to make one full rotation -- fluctuates around a 24-hour average. Over the course of a year, the length of a day varies by about 1 millisecond, getting longer in the winter and shorter in the summer . These seasonal changes in Earth's length of day are driven by exchanges of energy between the solid Earth and fluid motions of Earth's atmosphere (blowing winds and changes in atmospheric pressure) and its ocean. Scientists can measure these small changes in Earth's rotation using astronomical observations and very precise geodetic techniques.


The quote taken from the actual NASA paper sited for the article. Winter and summer in which hemisphere? Does only one hemisphere control the variations in Earth's rotation? If summer and winter conditions cause variations in the Earth's rotation, does that mean that the two hemispheres of the planet rotate at different speeds? That would seem impossible unless the planet is shearing at the equator.

Also, the Earth's orbit is elliptical, so when are we closer to the sun, when it is winter or summer in the northern hemisphere? Could this also have some bearing on the rotational speed of the Earth? Also does the aphelion of our orbit remain the same day each year or is it shifting on a certain time cycle? Fact is it can vary by up to two and a half days from one year to the next. It also works on a 22k to 26k year cycle as the aphelion point shifts around the calendar year. Currently aphelion is in July and perihelion is in January, could that alone account for the variation in day length in summer versus winter? If it does then results of this study linking it to climate variations is moot or greatly minimized.

quote:
Since total air temperature is composed of two components -- temperature changes that occur naturally and those caused by human activities -- the researchers used results from computer climate models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean to account for temperature changes due to human activities.


This is an assumption that any warming outside of what seems to occur by the change of the length of day is human caused. Though they then go on to say:

quote:
Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.


So something outside of human activity could also be at work here and yet the paper after making that statement follows up with this one:

quote:
Regardless of the eventual connections to be established between the solid Earth and climate , Dickey said the solid Earth's impacts on climate are still dwarfed by the much larger effects of human-produced greenhouse gases. "The solid Earth plays a role, but the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands," she concluded.


That assumes that no matter how big any outside influence is found to be, man is still to blame for the warming of our climate. Makes me wonder if there was some far past undiscovered advanced human civilization present on Earth millions of years ago, since only man it seems can cause global warming on such a scale, and since we know the climate has been higher in the very far past, then humans must have been around to cause that also. See if you chase assumptions to their logical conclusions you can come up with some really far reaching results.

It appears many "scientists" today are putting forth assumptions as rock solid facts without ruling out any other possibilities first.




RE: Something curious here.
By kattanna on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Something curious here.
By JediJeb on 3/14/2011 5:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't thinking so much along the lines of simply the seasons, but the fact they said it happens one way in winter and the other in summer, seeming to ignore that at any point in winter in the norther hemisphere it is also summer in the southern hemisphere and vice versa. Without defining which summer and winter you are talking about, you leave 6 months of doubt as to what you mean. Seems like a large thing to overlook in a scientific paper.


RE: Something curious here.
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 5:11:40 PM , Rating: 3
I think its a pretty tall order to ask scientists to be objective without thinking of their funding first.


RE: Something curious here.
By Lexda on 3/15/2011 11:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
Your disdain for the entire field is amusing. Science has never brought you anything, eh?

Sure, you run across the occasional unethical scientist, but that'll happen in any field. Unfortunately, the media and people such as yourself pick up on those few and peg them for the majority. I challenge you to pick up a recent copy of Science or Nature and show me some biased papers, and then I'll believe you.


RE: Something curious here.
By Arsynic on 3/15/2011 3:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Science is only as objective as the ones funding it. When the Church funded it, all of the scientific proof in the world didn't convince them that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.


Gee...
By tng on 3/14/2011 2:02:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Study blames human activity for climate change


quote:
Tiffany Kaiser - March 14, 2011 1:48 PM


Do we need to say more about the objectiveness of this article?




RE: Gee...
By AEvangel on 3/14/2011 2:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
Feel the guilt!!

As if the whole AGW theory club is manned by Jewish and Catholic mother's.....they don't care if there is any truth to it or if you really caused it as long as they can make you feel guilty about it.


RE: Gee...
By 3DoubleD on 3/14/2011 2:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I feel like this is one of her best articles yet. So interesting in fact I may look up the actual journal article. I generally see myself as a global warming skeptic, but this study is rather novel.

As for bias... show me anything written by a human being that isn't biased. All that ever changes is the degree of bias. All I ever ask for are the objective facts and I'll make up my own conclusions.

Think for yourself 100% of the time or waste the rest of your life shouting "bias" whenever someone says something you don't like.

Thanks for the article Tiffany


RE: Gee...
By tng on 3/30/2011 5:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think for yourself 100% of the time or waste the rest of your life shouting "bias" whenever someone says something you don't like.
That is the problem, I do think for myself and I do encourage you to look up the original study.

The problem with reading and thinking about it is that you can see bias much more easily......


RE: Gee...
By gamerk2 on 3/14/2011 2:21:46 PM , Rating: 1
You're free to read the actual NASA study.


Don't engineers have something better to do....
By zmatt on 3/14/2011 2:25:29 PM , Rating: 3
like working on spacecraft, like their job title suggests?

"were Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,"

I think I figured out why NASA is having a hard time, cause the supervisor of the JPL is letting his/her people work on studies they aren't qualified to. I don't see affordable and full reusable spacecraft yet. Stop slacking on the job!




By kattanna on 3/14/2011 4:07:16 PM , Rating: 1
funny you say that. this past weekend i was watching one of my favorite shows, modern marvels, and they were talking about packaging. one of the things they were packaging was the R2 robot going to the ISS.

what caught my eye was the couple dozen people working on just that. packaging a robot. and it took them 3 days. now while it not like you or me packing a box for moving, the sheer number of people you could see working all around it, i was like wow... thats why things cost so much for NASA


By Lexda on 3/15/2011 11:55:56 AM , Rating: 1
We're sending shit miles up into space. I'm a-okay with massive amounts of redundancy.


Amazing
By Ammohunt on 3/14/2011 3:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
these guys must be smart in just 160 years (eliminating the other 4539999840 years) they can determine man is to blame. Good thing the are not in market research or polling. A survey sample of that size is laughable.




RE: Amazing
By Arsynic on 3/15/2011 3:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
They're crazier than the Creationists. The Creationists believe that the Earth is only 7,000 years old and Climatologists believe that the Earth is 160 years old. That can be the only explanation behind why they think 160 years (out of billions) is an exceptable sample size.


In another study...
By mkrech on 3/14/2011 4:25:07 PM , Rating: 4
Uber scientists studying the local community pool showed that the pool was actually warming, and that it was in fact due to human impact.

Extremely specific guesses of what the temperature felt like before Tiffany visited the pool were correlated against WAG measurements (wild ass guess) taken after she left. The evidence not only proved that Tiffany urinates in the pool, but that she actually has a slight fever and may have just exposed everyone in the pool to industrial disease.

Now, where is my grant money!

P.S. I really do love the GW traffic troll posts. :)




There's no such thing as "balance".
By cochy on 3/14/2011 3:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NASA and international university researchers claim that humans have thrown off the balance between the Earth's rotation, surface air temperatures and movements in its molten core through our contribution of greenhouse gases.


"Balance" is an illusion cast upon the eyes of those who don't look deep into geological past. If you only go back 200 years or so you're tricked to believe the Earth isn't a dynamic and constantly changing world.

This study is moronic at best. How does it explain the ice ages? How does it explain warmer pre-historic temperatures? Snowball Earth? So according to this theory the Earth's core has been slowing down and speeding up, the days have been shorter then longer then shorter again? Is man the only source of greenhouse gas?

Were the stromatolites wrong to change the "balance" of the atmosphere by adding oxygen to it? Gee it's a good thing they screw with the Earth's natural "balance" back then huh?

Face the facts that this world will change with or certainly without humans doing their thing. If you honestly want to screw up the planet then you can try to keep it static and not let it change into something that might not suite humans so well.




By vanionBB on 3/14/2011 4:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares, both caption photos rule. Tiffany is on the board!




Where's Anthony Watts?
By JimboK29 on 3/14/2011 5:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
I would love for Anthony Watts or Joe D'Aleo to tear this report apart.




pseudo-science
By Argon18 on 3/14/2011 5:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Then, these temperature changes caused by human activities were removed from the overall total observed temperature records."

Right, because temperature changes caused by human activities are quantifiable facts. lol. sounds like these "scientists" made quite a lot of ASSumptions. Maybe they are the same "scientists" from the Climategate data suppression scandal.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki