flakrat said:Rex Racer said:
Yep. I knew as soon as AI took off that nuclear energy was about to make a huge comeback, too. It's the only way. There's too much money to be made.
Small nuke plants at the datacenter. This is the way!
A powerful eruption occurred at Taal Volcano in Batangas, Philippines today.
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) October 26, 2025
An ash plume is reported rising over 2,400 meters above the volcano’s crater.pic.twitter.com/VJtgc9amc0
Ag with kids said:flakrat said:Rex Racer said:
Yep. I knew as soon as AI took off that nuclear energy was about to make a huge comeback, too. It's the only way. There's too much money to be made.
Small nuke plants at the datacenter. This is the way!
They're restarting one of the units at Three Mile Island to supply Microsoft with datacenter power...
MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
rocky the dog said:
ntxVol said:TexAgs91 said:
The current server farms used to train AI systems and run inference are very inefficient.
Do you need powerplants rivalling state power plants to power and train a human brain over several decades? No. Not anywhere close. There needs to be R&D into making this way more efficient.
Actually you do, or you will very soon. The compute power needed to train the latest AI models is growing faster than Moore's law can provide the efficency gains needed to keep power requirements steady.
FobTies said:
Like "systematic racism", "climate change" has become a problem that puts food on the table for millions. If this "problem" goes away, so do the livelihoods of those people. Its become a multi-billion dollar industry.
It must remain an ambiguous unmeasurable threat to get unlimited funding. If it ever goes back to clean air/water, conservativation of wildlife/habitat, then its a solvable problem where funding can taper off.
CDUB98 said:Fightin_Aggie said:Over_ed said:
"The gap between the energy required for artificial intelligence and the global grid's capacity to generate and transmit electricity is vast and unlikely to be closed within our lifetimes," said Dave Stangis. Senior Executive at Apollo Global, a leading Private Equity firm where he led the sustainable (green) energy strategy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-22/apollo-says-ai-energy-gap-will-not-be-closed-in-our-lifetime
One word
Coal
There done, power needed bridged
Coal is terrible compared to nat gas and nuclear. Time to let that one slowly die on the vine.
I'm not saying that we should force plant closures, just not build anymore new ones unless they are right "next door" to coal producing regions.
Quote:
Coral coverage was supposed to be existentially devastated by the modern tenths-of-a-degree increases in sea surface temperatures and recurring bleaching events.
However, a new study points to assessments of coral cover percentages in the Great Barrier Reef and concludes is "at its highest since monitoring began in 1985."
Further, the analysis reveals there is "no consistent correlation between rising temperatures and reduced coral cover," and that "most corals [are] demonstrating rapid recovery" from bleaching.
Quote:
Coal is terrible compared to nat gas and nuclear. Time to let that one slowly die on the vine.
I'm not saying that we should force plant closures, just not build anymore new ones unless they are right "next door" to coal producing regions.
agent-maroon said:Quote:
Coal is terrible compared to nat gas and nuclear. Time to let that one slowly die on the vine.
I'm not saying that we should force plant closures, just not build anymore new ones unless they are right "next door" to coal producing regions.
Not seeking an argument or judging in any way, but what is your objection to coal? And why would proximity of the coal plant to the coal mines make a difference?
Quote:
It's not that coal is a hill I'll die on, it's that nat gas is safer, cheaper, cleaner, and more abundant.
Quote:
In the United States, coal resources are larger than remaining natural gas and oil resources, based on total British thermal units (Btu).
MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
YouBet said:Sq 17 said:Rex Racer said:
Yep. I knew as soon as AI took off that nuclear energy was about to make a huge comeback, too. It's the only way. There's too much money to be made.
Hope your right but the coal and O&G lobby will be fighting nuke expansion
I don't think they are going to win this one. Ultimately, conservatives want nuke power because it's the most efficient and cleanest and the left will want nuke because it's the lesser of evils in their mind from an environmental impact standpoint.
4stringAg said:Fireman said:
So they're saying AI is going to kill us after all by setting the planet on fire through global warming? Hope we win a couple of Natty's before it goes down.
We can always fake them with AI.
eric76 said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
There was a period known as the Little Ice Age with cooler temperatures. As we warmed our way up out of it, it would be surprising if CO2 levels did not increase during that period. It would likely be quite difficult to say how much of the increases in CO2 over the last 100 years was due to natural warming and how much was due to man's activities.
agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
Ag with kids said:eric76 said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
There was a period known as the Little Ice Age with cooler temperatures. As we warmed our way up out of it, it would be surprising if CO2 levels did not increase during that period. It would likely be quite difficult to say how much of the increases in CO2 over the last 100 years was due to natural warming and how much was due to man's activities.
If you look at the Vostok ice core data for the past millions of years, you'll see that CO2 increases LAG temperature increases.
This implies that the CO2 is not driving the temperature increase but, rather, increasing due to the temperature increase...
techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
One year after Tambora there was no summer. It was devastating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Look the climate is always changing. You don't know the perfect temp of the Earth because it's always in flux over time.
And if you don't believe proximity to the sun affects temperature just wait until this winter.
agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
One year after Tambora there was no summer. It was devastating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Look the climate is always changing. You don't know the perfect temp of the Earth because it's always in flux over time.
And if you don't believe proximity to the sun affects temperature just wait until this winter.
As I previously stated, volcanic activity can have short-lived impacts on global temperatures. Volcanic activity is not the reason the global average temperature has increased 1.2C in the past century.
Seasonal changes aren't due to the Earth's center of mass getting closer or further from the sun. It's due to the Earth's tilt on its axis. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere that is because the northern hemisphere is tilted in the direction of the sun...not because the Earth overall is closer. Now the Earth does have a slight elliptical orbit but this doesn't play a significant role in Earth's seasons or long-term climate change.
Quote:
explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature
ShinerAggie said:
Oh my, what rampant ignorance. Instead of platitudes and talking points, the actual data shows something quite different. Amazing how a molecule whose absorption bands are almost entirely blacked out by broad water vapor absorption can produce such "catastrophic" warming:
Potent little suckers, I tell ya!
techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
One year after Tambora there was no summer. It was devastating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Look the climate is always changing. You don't know the perfect temp of the Earth because it's always in flux over time.
And if you don't believe proximity to the sun affects temperature just wait until this winter.
agent-maroon said:Quote:
explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature
How was this "average global temperature" increase determined exactly? 100 years ago the global distribution of thermometers was very limited. Were the temperature stations standardized? How were the regional temperatures weighted into the global average? How was the calibration standardized or were the thermometers even calibrated at all? How was this century selected as the benchmark for global temperatures?
Please don't come back with inferred temperatures from ice cores or tree rings or the number of spots on Andulusian Mountain Toads or whatever. I want to see consistently recorded data with an explanation of how that data was averaged. TIA
