Protokol Kyoto

Protokol Kyoto merupakan suatu dokumen protokol yang diformulasikan di bawah perjanjian perubahan iklim PBB (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – UNFCCC).

Protokol ini merumuskan secara rinci langkah yang wajib dan dapat diambil oleh berbagai negara yang meratifikasinya untuk mencapai tujuan yang disepakati dalam perjanjian internasionalperubahan iklim PBB, yakni “stabilisasi konsentrasi gas rumah kaca dalam atmosfir pada tingkat yang dapat mencegah terjadinya gangguan manusia/ antropogenis pada sistem iklim dunia”.

Protokol Kyoto, sesuai namanya, diadopsi pada pertemuan ketiga Conference of Parties (COP)UNFCCC pada tanggal 11 Desember 1997 di kota Kyoto, Jepang. Protokol Kyoto mengikat secara hukum negara yang menandatangani dan meratifikasinya.

Pada tanggal 16 Februari 2005, Protokol Kyoto mulai berlaku setelah berhasil mengumpulkan jumlah minimum negara yang meratifikasinya. Sejauh ini, 187 negara telah menandatangani dan meratifikasi Protokol Kyoto.

Protokol Kyoto menggariskan 37 negara industri (disebut negara Annex I) diwajibkan untuk masing-masing mengurangi emisi gas rumah kaca sampai dengan 5,2 persen di bawah tingkat emisi tahun 1990. Angka ini disepakati berdasarkan rekomendasi yang tertera dalam laporan panel ilmuwan PBB IPCC.

Guna membantu negara Annex I yang terikat kewajiban penurunan emisi, Protokol Kyoto menetapkan berbagai mekanisme fleksibel (flexible mechanisms) seperti perdagangan emisi (emission trading), mekanisme pembangunan bersih (clean development mechanism) dan implementasi bersama (joint implementation). Mekanisme tersebut memungkinkan negara industri untuk memperoleh kredit emisi dengan cara pembiayai proyek pengurangan emisi di negara di luar negara Annex I atau dari negara Annex I yang sudah melampaui batas penurunan emisi yang diwajibkan.

Protokol Kyoto memiliki masa komitmen yang akan berakhir pada tahun 2012. Negara-negara penandatangan UNFCCC masih berada dalam proses perumusan perjanjian baru yang akan meneruskan atau menggantikan Protokol Kyoto setelah masa komitmen pertama berakhir. Untuk itu pada tahun 2007 telah dihasilkan Bali Roadmap atau Peta Jalan Bali yang melandasi perundingan internasional dalam mencapai hal tersebut.

Indonesia telah meratifikasi Protokol Kyoto pada tanggal 23 Juni 2004.

Professor Albert Mehrabian's communications model

Professor Albert Mehrabian has pioneered the understanding of communications since the 1960s. He received his PhD from Clark University and in l964 commenced an extended career of teaching and research at the University of California, Los Angeles. He currently devotes his time to research, writing, and consulting as Professor Emeritus of Psychology, UCLA. Mehrabian's work featured strongly (mid-late 1900s) in establishing early understanding of body language and non-verbal communications.

Aside from his many and various other fascinating works, Mehrabian's research provided the basis for the widely quoted and often much over-simplified statistic for the effectiveness of spoken communications.

Here is a more precise (and necessarily detailed) representation of Mehrabian's findings than is typically cited or applied:

• 7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in the words that are spoken.
• 38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
• 55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in facial expression.

The following is a more common and over-simplified interpretation of Mehrabian's findings, which is quoted and applied by many people to cover all communications - often without reference to Mehrabian, although Mehrabian's work is the derivation.

It is understandable that many people prefer short concise statements, however if you must use the simplified form of the Mehrabian formula you must explain the context of Mehrabian's findings. As a minimum you must state that the formula applies to communications of feelings and attitudes.

Here's the overly-simplistic interpretation. Where you see or use it, qualify it, in proper context.

• 7% of meaning in the words that are spoken.
• 38% of meaning is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
• 55% of meaning is in facial expression.

Other important contextual and qualifying details are:

Mehrabian did not intend the statistic to be used or applied freely to all communications and meaning.

Mehrabian provides this useful explanatory note (from his own website www.kaaj.com/psych, retrieved 29 May 2009):

"...Inconsistent communications - the relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages: My findings on this topic have received considerable attention in the literature and in the popular media. 'Silent Messages' [Mehrabian's key book] contains a detailed discussion of my findings on inconsistent messages of feelings and attitudes (and the relative importance of words vs. nonverbal cues) on pages 75 to 80.

Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking

Please note that this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable. Also see references 286 and 305 in Silent Messages - these are the original sources of my findings..."

(Albert Mehrabian, source www.kaaj.com/psych, retrieved 29 May 2009)

The 'Mehrabian formula' (7%/38%/55%) was established in situations where there was incongruence between words and expression.

That is, where the words did not match the facial expression: specifically in Mehrabian's research people tended to believe the expression they saw, not the words spoken.

tips on explaining context and application of mehrabian's formula

Notwithstanding all this background and qualification, Mehrabian's model has become one of the most widely referenced statistics in communications.

You will continue to see it referenced, and you will probably use it yourself, not always in its purest form, and not always with reference to its originator.

The essence of the model - even when used in overly simplistic form - is powerful and generally helpful, and certainly better than placing undue reliance on words alone for conveying (receiving and sending) communications, especially those which carry potentially emotional implications.

So, subject to suitable qualification and explanation, Mehrabian's findings and the theory resulting from them, are particularly useful in explaining the importance of understanding meaning in communications as distinct from words alone.

Here are a couple of simple ways to begin to qualify the interpretation and application of the formula:

You must first clarify that the Mehrabian formula often quoted out of context and too generally.

For example, the spoken instruction, "Everyone evacuate the building because there is a fire," carries 100% of the meaning in the words: i.e., 1) there is a fire, and 2) get the hell out of here. The tone of voice and body language might additionally indicate how far ahead of you the person issuing the instruction is likely to be, but aside from that, you'd get the message fully through the words without having to be an expert in body language to unravel the meaning.

Mehrabian's theory and its implications are also not especially applicable in strongly autocratic environments, such as the armed forces. If the Regimental Sergeant Major tells a soldier to jump, the soldier is best advised to consider how high, rather than whether the RSM is instead maybe inviting a debate about the merit of the instruction, or the feelings of the soldier in response to it.

The value of Mehrabian's theory relates to communications where emotional content is significant, and the need to understand it properly is great.

This is often applicable in management and business, where motivation and attitude have a crucial effect on outcomes.

using mehrabian's theory and statistics

Understanding the difference between words and meaning is a vital capability for effective communications and relationships. For example, as John Ruskin so elegantly put it:

"The essence of lying is in deception, not in words." (John Ruskin, 1819-1900, English art critic and social commentator)

The Mehrabian model is particularly useful in illustrating the importance of factors other than words alone when trying to convey meaning (as the speaker) or interpret meaning (as the listener), but care needs to be taken in considering the context of the communication: Style, expression, tone, facial expression and body language in Mehrabian's experiments did indeed account for 93% of the meaning inferred by the people in the study, but this is not a general rule that you can transfer to any given communications situation.

The understanding of how to convey (when speaking) and interpret (when listening) meaning will always be essential for effective communication, management and relationships. But using the Mehrabian percentages is not a reliable model to overlay onto all communications scenarios.

For example, Mehrabian's research involved spoken communications. Transferring the model indiscriminately to written or telephone communications is not reliable, except to say that without the opportunity for visual signs, there is likely to be even more potential for confused understanding and inferred meanings.

A fairer way of transferring Mehrabian's findings to modern written (memo, email etc) and telephone communications is simply to say that greater care needs to be taken in the use of language and expression, because the visual channel does not exist. It is not correct to assume that by removing a particular channel, then so the effectiveness of the communication reduces in line with the classically represented Mehrabian percentages. It ain't that simple.

It is fair to say that email and other written communications are limited to conveying words alone. The way that the words are said cannot be conveyed, and facial expression cannot be conveyed at all. Mehrabian provides us with a reference point as to why written communications, particularly quick, reduced emails and memos, so often result in confusion or cause offence, but his model should not be taken to mean that all written communications are inevitably weak or flawed.

If this were the case there would be no need for written contracts, deeds, legal documents, public notices, and all other manner of written communications, which, given their purpose, when well-written convey 100% of the intended meaning perfectly adequately using written words alone. When we enter a public bar and the sign on the wall says 'NO SMOKING' we know full well what it means. We may not know how the bar owner feels about having to bar his customers from smoking, but in terms of the purpose of the communication, and the meaning necessary to be conveyed, the written word alone is fine for this situation, regardless of Mehrabian's model.

A visitor to this page also made the fascinating observation that modern text-based communications allow inclusion of simple iconic facial expressions (smileys, and other emotional symbols), which further proves the significance of, and natural demand for, non-verbal signs within communications. The point also highlights the difficulty in attempting to apply the Mehrabian principle too generally, given that now electronic communications increasingly allow a mixture of communication methods - and many far more sophisticated than smileys - within a single message. (Thanks M Ellwood, Apr 2007)

Telephone communication can convey words and the way that the words are said, but no facial expression. Mehrabian's model provides clues as to why telephone communications are less successful and reliable for sensitive or emotional issues, but the model cannot be extended to say, for instance, that without the visual channel the meaning can only be a maximum of 45% complete.

Nor does Mehrabian's model say that telephone communications are no good for, say, phoning home to ask for the address of the local poodle parlour. For this type of communication, and for this intended exchange of information and meaning, the telephone is perfectly adequate, and actually a whole lot more cost-effective and efficient than driving all the way home just to ask the question and receive the answer face to face.

The Mehrabian statistics certainly also suggest that typical video-conferencing communications are not so reliable as genuine face-to-face communications, because of the intermittent transfer of images, which is of course incapable of conveying accurate non-verbal signals, but again it is not sensible to transfer directly the percentage effectiveness shown and so often quoted from the model. Video conferencing offers a massive benefits for modern organisation development and cooperation. Be aware of its vulnerabilities, and use it wherever it's appropriate, because it's a great system.

Mehrabian's model is a seminal piece of work, and it's amazingly helpful in explaining the importance of careful and appropriate communications. Like any model, care must be exercised when transferring it to different situations. Use the basic findings and principles as a guide and an example - don't transfer the percentages, or make direct assumptions about degrees of effectiveness, to each and every communication situation.

I am grateful for the guidance of B Taylor and C Edwards in progressively revising this guide to Mehrabian's communications theory.

For more information about Dr Albert Mehrabian and his fascinating work see his website.

Albert Mehrabian's key book is Silent Messages, which contains lots of information about non-verbal communications (body language).

Mehrabian, A. (1981) Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth (currently distributed by Albert Mehrabian, email: am@kaaj.com)

Global Warming

What is Global Warming?

Global Warming is the increase of Earth's average surface temperature due to effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels or from deforestation, which trap heat that would otherwise escape from Earth. This is a type of greenhouse effect.

Is global warming, caused by human activity, even remotely plausible?

Earth's climate is mostly influenced by the first 6 miles or so of the atmosphere which contains most of the matter making up the atmosphere. This is really a very thin layer if you think about it. In the book The End of Nature, author Bill McKibbin tells of walking three miles to from his cabin in the Adirondack's to buy food. Afterwards, he realized that on this short journey he had traveled a distance equal to that of the layer of the atmosphere where almost all the action of our climate is contained. In fact, if you were to view Earth from space, the principle part of the atmosphere would only be about as thick as the skin on an onion! Realizing this makes it more plausible to suppose that human beings can change the climate. A look at the amount of greenhouse gases we are spewing into the atmosphere (see below), makes it even more plausible.

What are the Greenhouse Gases?

The most significant greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, not something produced directly by humankind in significant amounts. However, even slight increases in atmospheric levels of  carbon dioxide (CO₂) can cause a substantial increase in temperature. 
Why is this? There are two reasons: First, although the concentrations of these gases are not nearly as large as that of oxygen and nitrogen (the main constituents of the atmosphere), neither oxygen or nitrogen are greenhouse gases. This is because neither has more than two atoms per molecule (i.e. their molecular forms are O₂ and N₂, respectively), and so they lack the internal vibrational modes that molecules with more than two atoms have. Both water and CO₂, for example, have these "internal vibrational modes", and these vibrational modes can absorb and reradiate infrared radiation, which causes the greenhouse effect. 
Secondly,  CO₂ tends to remain in the atmosphere for a very long time (time scales in the hundreds of years). Water vapor, on the other hand, can easily condense or evaporate, depending on local conditions. Water vapor levels therefore tend to adjust quickly to the prevailing conditions, such that the energy flows from the Sun and re-radiation from the Earth achieve a balance. CO₂ tends to remain fairly constant and therefore behave as a controlling factor, rather than a reacting factor. More CO₂ means that the balance occurs at higher temperatures and water vapor levels.  

How much have we increased the Atmosphere's CO₂ Concentration?

Human beings have increased the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere by about thirty percent, which is an extremely significant increase, even on inter-glacial timescales.  It is believed that human beings are responsible for this because the increase is almost perfectly correlated with increases in fossil fuel combustion, and also due other evidence, such as changes in the ratios of different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO₂ that are consistent with "anthropogenic" (human caused) emissions. The simple fact is, that under "business as usual" conditions, we'll soon reach carbon dioxide concentrations that haven't been seen on Earth in the last 50 million years.
Combustion of Fossil Fuels, for electricity generation, transportation, and heating, and also the manufacture of cement, all result in the total worldwide emission of about 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. About a third of this comes from electricity generation, and another third from transportation, and a third from all other sources.
This enormous input of CO₂ is causing the atmospheric levels of CO₂ to rise dramatically. The following graph shows the CO₂ levels over the past 160 thousand  years (the upper curve, with units indicated on the right hand side of the graph). The current level, and projected increase over the next hundred years if we do not curb emissions, are also shown (the part of the curve which goes way up high, to the right of the current level, is the projected CO2 rise). The projected increase in CO₂ is very startling and disturbing. Changes in the Earth's average surface temperature are also shown (the lower curve, with units on the left). Note that it parallels the CO₂ level curve very well. 

Is the Temperature Really Changing?

Yes! As everyone has heard from the media, recent years have consistently been the warmest in hundreds and possibly thousands of years. But that might be a temporary fluctuation, right? To see that it probably isn't, the next graph shows the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere as determined from many sources, carefully combined, such as tree rings, corals, human records, etc.

These graphs show a very discernable warming trend, starting in about 1900. It might seem a bit surprising that warming started as early as 1900. How is this possible? The reason is that the increase in carbon dioxide actually began in 1800, following the deforestation of much of Northeastern American and other forested parts of the world. The sharp upswing in emissions during the industrial revolution further added to this, leading to a significantly increased carbon dioxide level even by 1900. 
Thus, we see that Global Warming is not something far off in the future - in fact it predates almost every living human being today. 

How do we know if the temperature increase is caused by anthropogenic emissions?

Computer models strongly suggest that this is the case. The following graphs show that 1) If only natural fluctuations are included in the models (such as the slight increase in solar output that occurred in the first half of the 20th century), then the large warming in the 20th century is not reproduced. 2) If only anthropogenic carbon emissions are included, then the large warming is reproduced, but some of the variations, such as the cooling period in the 1950s, is not reproduced (this cooling trend was thought to be caused by sulfur dioxide emissions from dirty power plants). 3) When both natural and anthropogenic emissions of all types are included, then the temperature evolution of the 20th century is well reproduced.

Is there a connection between the recent drought and climate change? 

Yes. A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gives strong evidence that global warming was a major factor. Click here for more details.

Who studies global warming, and who believes in it?

Most of the scientific community, represented especially by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC - www.ipcc.ch), now believes that the global warming effect is real, and many corporations, even including Ford Motor Company, also acknowledge its likelihood.

Who are the IPCC?

In 1998, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in recognition of the threat that global warming presents to the world.

The IPCC is open to all members of the UNEP and WMO and consists of several thousand of the most authoritative scientists in the world on climate change. The role of the IPCC is to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature.

The IPCC has completed two assessment reports, developed methodology guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, special reports and technical papers.  Results of the first assessment (1990--1994): confirmed scientific basis for global warming but concluded that ``nothing to be said for certain yet''.  The second assessment (1995), concluded that `` ...the balance suggests a discernable human influence on global climate'', and concluded that, as predicted by climate models, global temperature will likely rise by about 1-3.5 Celsius by the year 2100. The next report, in 2000, suggested, that the climate might warm by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years, which would bring us back to a climate not seen since the age of the dinosaurs. The most recent report, in 2001, concluded that "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

Due to these assessments, debate has now shifted away from whether or not global warming is going to occur to, instead, how much, how soon, and with what impacts.

Global Warming Impacts

Many of the following "harbingers" and "fingerprints" are now well under way:

1. Rising Seas--- inundation of fresh water marshlands (the everglades), low-lying cities, and islands with seawater.
2. Changes in rainfall patterns --- droughts and fires in some areas, flooding in other areas. See the section above on the recent droughts, for example!
3. Increased likelihood of extreme events--- such as flooding, hurricanes, etc.
4. Melting of the ice caps --- loss of habitat near the poles. Polar bears are now thought to be greatly endangered by the shortening of their feeding season due to dwindling ice packs. 
5. Melting glaciers - significant melting of old glaciers is already observed.
6. Widespread vanishing of animal populations --- following widespread habitat loss.
7. Spread of disease --- migration of diseases such as malaria to new, now warmer, regions.
8. Bleaching of Coral Reefs due to warming seas and acidification due to carbonic acid formation --- One third of coral reefs now appear to have been severely damaged by warming seas.
9. Loss of Plankton due to warming seas --- The enormous (900 mile long) Aleution island ecosystems of orcas (killer whales), sea lions, sea otters, sea urchins, kelp beds, and fish populations, appears to have collapsed due to loss of plankton, leading to loss of sea lions, leading orcas to eat too many sea otters, leading to urchin explosions, leading to loss of kelp beds and their associated fish populations. 

Where do we need to reduce emissions?

In reality, we will need to work on all fronts - 10% here, 5% here, etc, and work to phase in new technologies, such as hydrogen technology, as quickly as possible. To satisfy the Kyoto protocol, developed countries would be required to cut back their emissions by a total of 5.2 % between 2008 and 2012 from 1990 levels. Specifically, the US would have to reduce its presently projected 2010 annual emissions by 400 million tons of CO₂ . One should keep in mind though, that even Kyoto would only go a little ways towards solving the problem. In reality, much more needs to be done.

The most promising sector for near term reductions is widely thought to be coal-fired electricity. Wind power, for example, can make substantial cuts in these emissions in the near term, as can energy efficiency, and also the increased use of high efficiency natural gas generation. 
The potential impact of efficiency should not be underestimated: A 1991 report to Congress by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, found that the U.S. could reduce current emissions by 50 percent at zero cost to the economy as a result of full use of cost-effective efficiency improvements.

Discussing Global Climate Change:

 Here is a useful list of facts and ideas:

1. Given the strong scientific consensus, the onus should now be on the producers of CO₂ emissions to show that there is not a problem, if they still even attempt to make that claim. Its time to acknowledge that we are, at very least, conducting a very dangerous experiment with Earth's climate.
2. A direct look at the data itself is very convincing and hard to argue with. Ask a skeptical person to look at the data above. The implications are obvious. The best source of data is probably the IPCC reports themselves, which are available at www.ipcc.ch (see, for example, the summaries for policy makers).
3. The recent, record-breaking warm years are unprecedented and statistically significant. It is a fact that they are very statistically unlikely to be a fluctuation (and now we can point to specific side effects from those warm temperatures that appear to have induced recent worldwide drought).
4. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, whether or not you believe in global warming per se, the fact remains that the carbon dioxide levels are rising dramatically --- there is no debate about this. If we continue to use fossil fuels in the way we presently do, then the amount of carbon we will release will soon exceed the amount of carbon in the living biosphere. This is bound to have very serious, very negative effects, some of which, such as lowering the pH of the ocean such that coral cannot grow, are already well known.

Response of Government: Develop "Carbon Sequestration" Technology

Many government agencies around the world are very interested in maintaining fossil fuel use, especially coal. It should be noted that US energy use, which is enormous, is increasing, not decreasing. Furthermore, we are not going to run out of coal in the near term (oil may begin to run low sometime after 2010). Methods for reducing carbon emission levels while still burning coal are now investigation by government and industry, as we now discuss. 
We believe that a major increase in renewable energy use should be achieved to help offset global warming. While there are some US government programs aimed in this direction, there is simply not enough money being spent yet to achieve this goal in a timely manner. A primary goal of many new programs is not to increase renewables, but rather, is to find ways to capture the extra CO2 from electricity generation plants and "sequester" it in the ground, the ocean, or by having plants and soil organisms absorb more of it from the air. 

Possible Problems with Carbon "Sequestration"

One of the Carbon sequestration approaches under investigation is the possibility of depositing CO₂ extracted from emission streams in large pools on the Ocean bottom. It is possible that such pools will not be stable, and may either erupt to the surface, or diffuse into the ocean and alter the oceans pH.
Another scheme under investigation is the idea of stimulating phytoplankton growth on the ocean surface by dusting the surface with iron (the limiting nutrient). This will cause an increased uptake of carbon by the plankton, part of which will find its way to the ocean bottom. Fishing companies are considering using this to increase fish harvests while simultaneously getting credit for carbon sequestration. Serious ecological disruptions could occur, however, especially if this approach is conducted on a sufficiently large scale.
Another idea is to stimulate Earth's terrestrial ecosystems to take up more carbon dioxide. While the impacts here are more difficult to ascertain, an important point to note is that these systems are not thought to be able to completely absorb all the extra CO₂ . At best, they may be sufficient to help the US stabilize carbon emission rates for a few decades, but even if this is achieved, stabilization of rates are not likely to return the Earth to pre-industrial carbon levels. Worse, biological feedbacks to global warming, such as forest fires, drying soils, rotting permafrost, etc, may actually greatly accelerate carbon emissions, i.e. we may experience massive carbon de-sequestration.
Another major approach under consideration is to pump CO₂ into old oil and gas wells. While seemingly attractive, it must be kept in mind that for this to be truly effective, it would have to be done on a world wide scale, include many sources of CO₂ , including many sources which are presently small and widely distributed (such as car emissions, and not just coal plant emissions). All of this CO₂ would need to be captured, transported, injected into old wells, and then the wells would need to be sealed and monitored. It is not clear that this would be affordable at all, and that there would be adequate capacity or assurance that CO₂ would not leak out in massive quantities. 
In the worst case scenario, carbon sequestration efforts may simply fail, but also end up being a political tool that is used to seriously delay a transition to renewable energy sources, and also possibly create many new environmental problems problems while prolonging old ones.
In the best case scenario, given the truly enormous amount of CO₂ we are presently emitting, some sequestration approaches may serve as a useful bridge to curbing emissions while the transition to renewables is being made.

Some Global Warming Related Websites

IPCC site: http://www.ipcc.ch : Try the Summaries for Policy Makers for starters. These are concise, well written documents that also contain some of the best and latest data.
US Global Change Research Program: www.usgcrp.gov
Weathervane: an online forum designed to provide the news
media, legislators, opinion leaders, and the interested public with
analysis and commentary on U.S. and global policy initiatives related to climate change.  http://www.weathervane.rff.org/
The global warming primer and discussion at website of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory: http://www.igpp.lanl.gov
Back to Table of Contents