If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   2011 was the most extreme weather year in ever. In ever, Jerry, in ever   (scientificamerican.com) divider line 108
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

4137 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jun 2011 at 11:15 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-18 11:42:42 PM

RandomAxe: the simple fact that the overall increase in average global temperature is only about 0.3 degrees. That is directly from the IPCC report.

From which IPCC report? The most recent is the 2007 report, and it says .74 C over the last 100 years. But very possibly the IPCC report is wrong, especially depending on what you mean by "wrong". Imprecise, inaccurate, out of date, sure, very possibly.

NASA's Goddard Institute analysis from last year is a lot more current, and it suggests a slightly larger increase over the last hundred years. You can easily google this.

But the issue immediately at hand isn't how big the average increase is but whether or not the increase is a problem or is indicative of a problematic trend. Among people who have expertise in directly relevant fields, the overwhelming majority says yes, it's problematic. So whether the number seems big or small, the experts are saying it's a bad thing.

Getting hit by just one bullet can be bad, after all, and much less than a single gram of botulin can ruin a picnic, so don't be too impressed by decimal places.


another incredibly stupid analogy. Now it is bullets. Maybe you should compare getting shot by a bb gun to being shot by a .45 caliber pistol.

I am not the one impressed by decimal points. If anything, you are the one who is impressed. I do not see the change as being significant while you do.

And I love how you warmers always toss out that lie that the overwhelming majority support this theory. It just is not the case. Besides that, science is not a popularity contest. In science, it is often the person who disagrees with the majority who makes a discovery.
 
2011-06-18 11:43:04 PM
chuckufarlie:

Wolf_Blitzer: chuckufarlie: major changes? The only change so far has been an average global temperature of about 0.3 degrees.

If your toaster starts on fire, do you wait until the entire kitchen is burning to put it out?

Another fine example of your magnificent logic.

You were talking about major changes and I pointed that the major changes must be the result of a very small increase in temperature. Now, what the hell does a burning toaster have to do with that? The comparison that you are trying to make is insanely stupid.

I really have no idea why you would post something like that. You win the stupid award for the day..


Is that something your astroturfer bosses give out on a regular basis, nick?

You do realized that the difference between now and the last ice age was only 4 degrees, right? 0.3 is not "a very small change."
 
2011-06-18 11:47:44 PM
chuckufarlie:

And I love how you warmers always toss out that lie that the overwhelming majority support this theory. It just is not the case. Besides that, science is not a popularity contest. In science, it is often the person who disagrees with the majority who makes a discovery.

A) it is in fact the case.

B) Well, come back and tell us about it when that hypothetical person overturns the fact that increasing the concentration of CO2 by amount X will cause it to absorb Y amount more infrared radiation. That's basically what they would have to disprove.

Good luck with that.
 
2011-06-19 12:22:55 AM

maxheck: chuckufarlie:

B) Well, come back and tell us about it when that hypothetical person overturns the fact that increasing the concentration of CO2 by amount X will cause it to absorb Y amount more infrared radiation. That's basically what they would have to disprove.


Could you tell me what X and Y are?
 
2011-06-19 12:25:40 AM
Saturn5:

maxheck: chuckufarlie:

B) Well, come back and tell us about it when that hypothetical person overturns the fact that increasing the concentration of CO2 by amount X will cause it to absorb Y amount more infrared radiation. That's basically what they would have to disprove.


Could you tell me what X and Y are?


I couldn't, but an atmospheric chemist could. In fact, any proficient chemist could.
 
2011-06-19 01:04:20 AM
Well at least we didn't get a massive tsunami like Japan. Yet.
 
2011-06-19 10:53:29 AM
The cows must be stopped.
 
2011-06-19 01:37:00 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread realizes GeneralGreenText doesn't know what he's talking about, but this one is particularly hilarious:


Okay, you gibbering toad, I know you have so little to back you that you are reduced to ad hominem. But, you need to PROVE what you are saying. So, how about you address the SCIENCE, biatch?

GeneralJim: The Greenhouse Effect (GHE) remains at a near constant -- heating or cooling tendencies cause water vapor to change to balance the change out. Models assume differently -- that's why they suck at prediction, and are always WAY high.

Increased air temperature causes a higher vapor pressure and evaporation rate, leading to increased water vapor (which is a greenhouse gas), ergo the water vapor feedback is positive, not negative as you claim. I can recommend a few good atmospheric science or physics classes if you're still confused.


Well, dimwit, the point is that climate scientists (now mostly computer modellers) got it freaking wrong. Those supporting the warmer alarmist position CONSTANTLY underestimate the complexity of the climate and atmosphere. They also confuse making models with doing research. What matters is not what the model says, but what the planet DOES. Models are a theory put into code. If you use wrong theories, the model behaves differently than the planet. That is certainly the case with CGMs, which have, in every case, sucked at predicting the future.

Here are a few reports on clouds and water vapor which prove your position wrong:

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations (new window)

Cloud Feedbacks in the Climate System: A Critical Review (new window)

WATER VAPOR TRENDS AND VARIABILITY FROM THE GLOBAL NVAP DATASET (new window)

And, you know, even YOU should be able to find this stuff... A LITTLE HELP. (new window)
 
2011-06-19 01:49:37 PM

maxheck: chuckufarlie:

And I love how you warmers always toss out that lie that the overwhelming majority support this theory. It just is not the case. Besides that, science is not a popularity contest. In science, it is often the person who disagrees with the majority who makes a discovery.

A) it is in fact the case.

B) Well, come back and tell us about it when that hypothetical person overturns the fact that increasing the concentration of CO2 by amount X will cause it to absorb Y amount more infrared radiation. That's basically what they would have to disprove.

Good luck with that.


it is in fact, a theory and a poor one at that. You have no accurate idea WHEN the temperature started to rise and you have no accurate idea of WHY it increased. All you have is not at all convincing to those of us who can actually think for ourselves. The scam has run its course, people no longer believe in it. We are not going to spend billions of dollars to fix a problem that does not exist.

Take a good close look at the UN proposals to fix this "problem" and then tell me that you support it.
 
2011-06-19 01:49:50 PM

RandomAxe: GeneralJim, you're just going to hurt yourself. Global warming isn't a hypothesis. It's a class of theories. I don't know of a single major theory in that class which has been "falsified". Some have been shown to be very unlikely, and most have been modified to some extent, which is all part of the proper scientific process.

Regardless, if you feel that a particular explanation of the data and/or projection of future data has been disproven or discredited, it doesn't change the data already on hand. Similarly, data conflicting with a small subset of the existing data does not outweigh the entire body of data.

Shouting doesn't make you right.


As commonly understood, the HYPOTHESIS (please research the differences between "theory" and "hypothesis.") of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that "human-caused releases of carbon dioxide have caused dangerous and unprecedented increases in global temperature." Please verify that you agree with this. Once you agree, I will demolish it.
 
2011-06-19 01:57:46 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: During the early Eocene (50 million years ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations were somewhere between 1500-2200ppm (a level humanity could exceed by the end of this century, at present outputs).


Oh, really, dumbass? You are claiming that we could more than QUINTUPLE the entire amount of carbon dioxide in the air in less than 90 years? Gee, let's get this published by the IPCC. They publish ANYTHING. Please, Uncle Woofie, tell us ANOTHER story. We LOVE bullshiat.
 
2011-06-19 01:58:54 PM

maxheck: chuckufarlie:

Wolf_Blitzer: chuckufarlie: major changes? The only change so far has been an average global temperature of about 0.3 degrees.

If your toaster starts on fire, do you wait until the entire kitchen is burning to put it out?

Another fine example of your magnificent logic.

You were talking about major changes and I pointed that the major changes must be the result of a very small increase in temperature. Now, what the hell does a burning toaster have to do with that? The comparison that you are trying to make is insanely stupid.

I really have no idea why you would post something like that. You win the stupid award for the day..

Is that something your astroturfer bosses give out on a regular basis, nick?

You do realized that the difference between now and the last ice age was only 4 degrees, right? 0.3 is not "a very small change."


Are you telling me that you are stupid enough to believe that ANYBODY would pay a person to come to fark to tell idiots like you that you are idiots? Are you that paranoid or just incredibly stupid?

Any fool who believes that a person could make money posting on fark is stupid enough to believe in AGW. Do you EVER think about ANYTHING before you make your decisions?

Of course, you also seem to believe that an average global drop in temperature of 4 degrees is enough to cover over half of the planet with ice hundreds of feet thick.

Tell me, Einstein, WHAT IS THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE?
 
2011-06-19 02:09:43 PM

RandomAxe: Considering the magnitude of human environmental influence, in any case, it would be far, far more surprising if we weren't having some kind of major and lasting influence on many aspects of our habitat. The main questions are: What kinds of changes? How bad are they? Is it worth it? Can we fix it? If not, what else do we need to do about it?


That humans have an effect on the Earth should be a simple assumption for most people. Release of carbon dioxide, itself, has close to NO effect on the climate, although if continued, plants will be more productive, and will develop fewer stomata, meaning that they will lose less water, and be more drought-resistant.

If not for the fact that literally TRILLIONS of dollars, and the control of almost all human activity, are at stake, the idea that carbon dioxide controls temperature would have disappeared.

When we were releasing lots of sulfur dioxide as well, our emissions WERE playing Hell with the planet. If we can limit our emissions to pure carbon dioxide and water vapor, we have nothing to worry about until we reach around 0.5% atmospheric levels, an incredibly long way off.
 
2011-06-19 02:22:04 PM

RandomAxe: But the issue immediately at hand isn't how big the average increase is but whether or not the increase is a problem or is indicative of a problematic trend. Among people who have expertise in directly relevant fields, the overwhelming majority says yes, it's problematic. So whether the number seems big or small, the experts are saying it's a bad thing.


Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made. And, there is essentially zero evidence that this is the case. Since long before the industrial revolution, the planet has been warming at about 0.26K/century, and that rate has not changed, when looked at long-term. Assigning this magically to human activity borders on the retarded. We have had periods of increase, and decrease. There are MANY patterns superimposed on the slow, steady rise. Most significant, it appears, is the 60-year solar cycle. If one cherry-picks, and starts looking at around 1975 or so, it can APPEAR that there is a problem. We are now starting decades of cooling, which will balance out the heavy warming of 1975-2005, roughly.

The planet warms and cools. We are at the coldest point since the last ice age, and struggling to warm up... if you look at the proper scale of things. As a species, we've been FINE with climate change all along, until we have someone who stands to make incredible sums "saving the planet" with oppressive regulation and taxation.
 
2011-06-19 02:36:17 PM
chuckufarlie: And I love how you warmers always toss out that lie that the overwhelming majority support this theory. It just is not the case.

You're a doofus. Worse, you either don't know what you're talking about or you're being disingenuous. Either way, you're not worth arguing with here.


GeneralJim: As commonly understood, the HYPOTHESIS (please research the differences between "theory" and "hypothesis.") of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that "human-caused releases of carbon dioxide have caused dangerous and unprecedented increases in global temperature." Please verify that you agree with this. Once you agree, I will demolish it.

Dude, you obviously don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, yourself, and you obviously didn't actually read what I said. AGW theories -- of which there are many, as I said -- make specific verifiable predictions, and most have faced no serious countrary data. But semantic pedantry would get you nowhere, anyway, even if you were right, which you're not.

Further, that is not a reasonably accurate description of AGW; it's what we call a strawman. It's charming that you think I'm so desperately stupid not to notice you adding "unprecedented" or limiting the scope of AGW to carbon dioxide release. Feeble. And I see you have a marked preference for unsupported claims and junk science of your own. Big whoop. If you're not equipped to have this argument, don't bother stepping up to the plate -- but, as I've already said, your whargarbl changes nothing, anyway.
 
2011-06-19 02:37:36 PM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

"And so [insert city name here] heat wave continues, with today's temperature exceeding the record for this date, set way back four billion years ago, when the earth was just a ball of molten lava!"
 
2011-06-19 02:46:55 PM
Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made.

No, the most important issue is whether or not dangerous warming is occurring. The second most important issue is, if it is occurring, what are we going to do about it. Finding causes and exacerbating factors is one part of the second issue.


Since long before the industrial revolution, the planet has been warming at about 0.26K/century, and that rate has not changed, when looked at long-term.

This is not a given. Goddard, for instance, finds a rate of more like .4K since 1880, which is a huge difference.


Assigning this magically to human activity borders on the retarded.

Yes, it would be. But that does not describe what the scientific community has done.


We have had periods of increase, and decrease.

Yeah, and I'll trust actual climatologists to take these things into account. I know people who do this for a living, and they're actual experts, they do not profit from global warming (they would be doing other climate research if there were no global warming), and they know what they're talking about.


If one cherry-picks, and starts looking at around 1975 or so, it can APPEAR that there is a problem.

In other words, the house has never been on fire before, so surely there's no problem now. I see.


We are now starting decades of cooling, which will balance out the heavy warming of 1975-2005, roughly.

We'll see.


As a species, we've been FINE with climate change all along,

What? Uh, no, that's not a scientific position at all. Just because climate change hasn't rendered us extinct doesn't mean it's always been great for us. In any case, survival of the species is hardly what most of us have to worry about on a day-to-day basis, much less the best we should shoot for. If sea levels come up over 50 years and ruin the lives of tens of millions of people, what, so what because we still have other people elsewhere? That is not an impressive Everything's Fine sort of attitude.
 
2011-06-19 02:49:12 PM

GeneralJim: Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made. And, there is essentially zero evidence that this is the case.


One can argue the merits and weaknesses of individual pieces of evidence, but an absolute and absurd claim like this shows how irrational and at odds with reality you are.
 
2011-06-19 03:08:54 PM

RandomAxe: chuckufarlie: And I love how you warmers always toss out that lie that the overwhelming majority support this theory. It just is not the case.

You're a doofus. Worse, you either don't know what you're talking about or you're being disingenuous. Either way, you're not worth arguing with here.


And yet you found the need to post this! Believe what you want, just don't spend my money to fix a problem that does not exist.
 
2011-06-19 03:10:54 PM

RandomAxe: Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made.

No, the most important issue is whether or not dangerous warming is occurring. The second most important issue is, if it is occurring, what are we going to do about it. Finding causes and exacerbating factors is one part of the second issue.



Great, now you want to take what might be a natural process and you want to change it. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that!!!

you are a moron.
 
2011-06-19 03:13:53 PM

GeneralJim: Since long before the industrial revolution, the planet has been warming at about 0.26K/century, and that rate has not changed, when looked at long-term.


The thing is that one can make any trend look linear, if you make the scale long enough. For what you've said here to have any meaning, you have to be a bit more specific about what you mean by "long-term".

GeneralJim: We have had periods of increase, and decrease. There are MANY patterns superimposed on the slow, steady rise. Most significant, it appears, is the 60-year solar cycle. If one cherry-picks, and starts looking at around 1975 or so, it can APPEAR that there is a problem. We are now starting decades of cooling, which will balance out the heavy warming of 1975-2005, roughly.


Looking at the latter half of the last century isn't really cherry-picking. That is the time where the concentration of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases is really starting to increase. The choice of looking at this period isn't arbitrary. In addition, the mere existence of other changes in temperature over the course of Earth's history says very little about the attribution of the current warming trend. The analogy I like is that what you're doing is similar to claiming that arson does not exist because of the existence of naturally-set fires.

As for your claim about "most significant, it appears, is the 60-year solar cycle", you were just nailed on the problems with this a few days ago, from direct refutation from the scientific literature, to proper and up-to-date plotting of the same data sets as you attempted to use yourself:
i54.tinypic.com
(from here)

That you would repeat such a claim, even though it's been soundly thrashed, and so recently, does not speak well for you ability to be intellectually honest or your ability to approach this subject rationally.

In addition, you seem to be indulging in a bit of prognostication at the end there. Upon what do you base this specific claim of yours?
 
2011-06-19 03:30:34 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made. And, there is essentially zero evidence that this is the case.

One can argue the merits and weaknesses of individual pieces of evidence, but an absolute and absurd claim like this shows how irrational and at odds with reality you are.


Really? Okay, what evidence do you have that current climate is the result of human activity? And, by evidence, I mean EXCLUDING correspondence/causally uncertain issues, such as temperatures have gone up and carbon dioxide has gone up.
 
2011-06-19 04:07:15 PM

RandomAxe: Further, that is not a reasonably accurate description of AGW; it's what we call a strawman.


Okay, you're really getting into throwing insults. Let's see how you do with something else. How about YOU define AGW for me?
 
2011-06-19 04:20:06 PM

Damnhippyfreak: That you would repeat such a claim, even though it's been soundly thrashed, and so recently, does not speak well for you ability to be intellectually honest or your ability to approach this subject rationally.


You lying bastard. You are grossly mis-representing, well, EVERYTHING. Simple fact: over the industrial revolution time frame favored by alarmists, the AMO charts show much better correlation to temperature than do carbon dioxide levels. You are a useless nit-picker. Your claim that sunspot length is somehow instantaneously reflected in temperature is plain stupid. While it may have been chosen for a lesser, or shorter, lag than other measures, an examination by even a third grader (find one if you can't do it yourself) shows that there is a lag. And, given that lag, if temperatures drop quickly in the next decade, that would also be good correlation.

And, again, your utter slippery dishonesty comes into play in that you refuse to apply the standards you claim I should follow to your side. What about that little thirty-year drop in temperatures from 1940-1970? Yet, you biatch about a short drop at the very end of the chart, at present time, for the solar data. Post whatever you want, dipstick, but you'll be seeing very few responses from me. You are not an honest debater. So, fark off.
 
2011-06-19 07:25:13 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: That you would repeat such a claim, even though it's been soundly thrashed, and so recently, does not speak well for you ability to be intellectually honest or your ability to approach this subject rationally.

You lying bastard. You are grossly mis-representing, well, EVERYTHING. Simple fact: over the industrial revolution time frame favored by alarmists, the AMO charts show much better correlation to temperature than do carbon dioxide levels. You are a useless nit-picker. Your claim that sunspot length is somehow instantaneously reflected in temperature is plain stupid. While it may have been chosen for a lesser, or shorter, lag than other measures, an examination by even a third grader (find one if you can't do it yourself) shows that there is a lag. And, given that lag, if temperatures drop quickly in the next decade, that would also be good correlation.

And, again, your utter slippery dishonesty comes into play in that you refuse to apply the standards you claim I should follow to your side. What about that little thirty-year drop in temperatures from 1940-1970? Yet, you biatch about a short drop at the very end of the chart, at present time, for the solar data. Post whatever you want, dipstick, but you'll be seeing very few responses from me. You are not an honest debater. So, fark off.



That is why I put him on my ignore list. I think that his brain is fried. He also lies, as you pointed out.
 
2011-06-20 01:23:20 AM

chuckufarlie: That is why I put him on my ignore list. I think that his brain is fried. He also lies, as you pointed out.


I guess part of the problem I have with him is that I initially trusted him -- he SOUNDED reasonable at first. Over time, I have come to realize that he is simply a time-waster, who won't criticize ANYTHING on "his team" but will pick the tiniest of nits with anyone he sees as not on his team. I think I fold my annoyance with myself for not noticing what a douche he is for quite a while into my annoyance with him for being a douche.
 
2011-06-20 02:53:27 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: That you would repeat such a claim, even though it's been soundly thrashed, and so recently, does not speak well for you ability to be intellectually honest or your ability to approach this subject rationally.

You lying bastard. You are grossly mis-representing, well, EVERYTHING. Simple fact: over the industrial revolution time frame favored by alarmists, the AMO charts show much better correlation to temperature than do carbon dioxide levels. You are a useless nit-picker. Your claim that sunspot length is somehow instantaneously reflected in temperature is plain stupid. While it may have been chosen for a lesser, or shorter, lag than other measures, an examination by even a third grader (find one if you can't do it yourself) shows that there is a lag. And, given that lag, if temperatures drop quickly in the next decade, that would also be good correlation.

And, again, your utter slippery dishonesty comes into play in that you refuse to apply the standards you claim I should follow to your side. What about that little thirty-year drop in temperatures from 1940-1970? Yet, you biatch about a short drop at the very end of the chart, at present time, for the solar data. Post whatever you want, dipstick, but you'll be seeing very few responses from me. You are not an honest debater. So, fark off.



Note that what I presented to you in this thread has nothing to do with lag. If you remember, the discussion about lag in the previous thread was surrounding my contention that you were moving the goalposts and teleological reasoning in attempting to pick an arbitrary lag in order to justify correlation.

More importantly, the AMO isn't a solar cycle (and is instead mostly derived from changes in thermohaline circulation (new window)), and it is calculated by removing any linear trend (including anthropogenic climate change). By definition, it cannot be responsible for the current warming trend. You're not even getting the basics right of what you're talking about.

In addition, the above has been pointed out to before. You're arguing like a creationist here - you're deliberately remaining ignorant of the very basics of the scientific concepts you're attempting to use, and when the actual science pointed out to you, you ignore it and simply repeat your point at another time. True to form, instead of arguing using evidence, you simply ignore it when presented to you. Here, you seem to be relying on an unsourced graph and conjecture while not even attempting to evaluate or understand in any way the actual science presented to you.

Come on now. Again, you're not even getting the definition right of the concepts you're trying to use, and you're not even attempting to engage or evaluate the science presented to you. How rational or honest is that of you? What do you think this looks like to others?
 
2011-06-20 03:52:36 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made. And, there is essentially zero evidence that this is the case.

One can argue the merits and weaknesses of individual pieces of evidence, but an absolute and absurd claim like this shows how irrational and at odds with reality you are.

Really? Okay, what evidence do you have that current climate is the result of human activity? And, by evidence, I mean EXCLUDING correspondence/causally uncertain issues, such as temperatures have gone up and carbon dioxide has gone up.



Yowch. You mean you're completely ignorant of any of the evidence behind attribution of the recent warming trend? I mean, if you haven't read enough to even be aware of the the mere existence of said lines of evidence, how are you beginning to evaluate their worth? A likely answer is that you haven't even done the superficial amount of investigation required - yet another bit of evidence that you're approaching this topic irrationally.

That aside, I can give an outline. If you want more detail, I warn you that some reading on your part may be required.

Since there are multiple factors simultaneously influencing climate and are therefore confounded, simple correlation is insufficient - important factors need to be accounted for individually (as well as their interactions). Therefore the amount contributed by 'natural' and anthropogenic forcings (as well as resulting feedbacks) need to be accounted for (or filtered). This 'accounting for' (or fingerprinting) means the construction of a model that can explain most of the variability we see in temperature. Don't be put off by a knee-jerk reaction to the word 'model' - even understanding the simplest linear systems require such a construct. This is where a note needs to be made about your mentioning of "causally uncertain". Any and all models involve some uncertainty - if there was none, it wouldn't be a model but instead a 1:1 facsimile of the real world. The important question is whether there the model allows for useful inferences over the domain in which it is intended to work.

So, have we examined what these forcings and feedbacks are? Yes. Here's an accessible place that describes these factors. You may have previously seen this diagram from the IPCC TAR:

One solid paper using this line of reasoning and evidence that got a lot of cites was Stott 2000. Another is well as Meehl et al. 2007 from which we can pull this representation:

i51.tinypic.com
The first PC here (which accounts for 90% of the variability) refers to forcing related to greenhouse gases, the second (representing 8%) is forcing from volcanism and solar, and the third (1% of variance) is from various other sources. If you want more details about what a PC (principal component) is, I can help, but it would save a lot of time if you could let me know what kind of stats background you have.

The conclusion that is arrived at again and again is that the current warming trend cannot be accounted for without the inclusion of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as external forcing factors. If you wish to read more, the IPCC TAR Ch.9 and Ch.2 are good (and accessible) places to start for this specific question. Even if you somehow disagree with them (and the scientific literature they cite), you should be at least familiar with the basics so you have some chance of knowing why.

As always, if you can't get a hold of a particular paper, give a shout and I can put it up somewhere for you. If you need more detail, I can provide some. For instance, I didn't get into how we know that the increase in greenhouse gases is anthropogenic in origin. However, given you weren't even aware of the above basics, we probably won't get that far ;)
 
2011-06-20 03:59:17 AM

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: That is why I put him on my ignore list. I think that his brain is fried. He also lies, as you pointed out.

I guess part of the problem I have with him is that I initially trusted him -- he SOUNDED reasonable at first. Over time, I have come to realize that he is simply a time-waster, who won't criticize ANYTHING on "his team" but will pick the tiniest of nits with anyone he sees as not on his team. I think I fold my annoyance with myself for not noticing what a douche he is for quite a while into my annoyance with him for being a douche.


The thing is that nobody else is misrepresenting the scientific evidence, or shows as poor of an understanding of it as you do - this thread is a perfect example. For example, I just had to point out to you that the AMO isn't a "60-year solar cycle", something you attempted to talk about as you conspicuously avoided the two strong pieces of scientific evidence I presented. These are are not nits, but the very basics of the science of which you, time and time again, seem to be deliberately remaining ignorant of.
 
2011-06-20 04:15:11 AM

Damnhippyfreak: So, have we examined what these forcings and feedbacks are? Yes. Here's an accessible place that describes these factors. You may have previously seen this diagram from the IPCC TAR:


Looks like the pic didn't come through. Let me rehost that and try again:

i53.tinypic.com
 
2011-06-20 04:55:40 AM

GeneralJim: And, again, your utter slippery dishonesty comes into play in that you refuse to apply the standards you claim I should follow to your side. What about that little thirty-year drop in temperatures from 1940-1970? Yet, you biatch about a short drop at the very end of the chart, at present time, for the solar data. Post whatever you want, dipstick, but you'll be seeing very few responses from me. You are not an honest debater. So, fark off.



I neglected to address this directly. The "short drop at the very end of the chart" is going on 60 years now by the chart I posted, and a bit more than 20 years from the paper I linked to. The current wide divergence between solar activity and temperature and the lack of a temperature response similar to the current one in previous Gleissberg cycles (apparent from the plot I posted) both suggest that, counter to your claim, that solar cycles are not "most significant". As for the drop in temperatures from 1940-1970 (whose start is closer to 1950, BTW). I am not claiming that CO2 is the only factor working on climate, and the small dip does not somehow negate or change the large divergence between current warming and solar activity. If you wish to discuss this point further, we can do so, but from I believe that dip was largely attributed to particulates (that's off the top of my head, so beware).

The fact that I did not spontaneously address these ideas you're mentioning is unsuprising since nobody has mentioned them in the thread, and they do not modify the argument I'm making, nor do they support the claim you're making. You're complaining here that I'm not addressing ideas that nobody, not even you, had mentioned in the thread. How realistic is this expectation of yours? Had you mentioned such aspects at all, I would have been glad to discuss them.

In addition, what you're saying here misses the more important point that what I do not discuss says nothing about the veracity or of the aspects that I do discuss. The fact that certain things don't come up in a thread (and I don't address them) does not mean that what you post is any less problematic. This just looks like you're looking for yet another excuse to ignore the scientific information I present. Like a zealous, intellectually dishonest creationist would.
 
2011-06-20 09:17:12 AM

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: That is why I put him on my ignore list. I think that his brain is fried. He also lies, as you pointed out.

I guess part of the problem I have with him is that I initially trusted him -- he SOUNDED reasonable at first. Over time, I have come to realize that he is simply a time-waster, who won't criticize ANYTHING on "his team" but will pick the tiniest of nits with anyone he sees as not on his team. I think I fold my annoyance with myself for not noticing what a douche he is for quite a while into my annoyance with him for being a douche.


He has nothing to add and any conversation with him is a waste of time. I will admit that at times, I find his stupidity hilarious and read a few of his posts for that reason. Of all of the delusional warmers, he might be the worst of the lot.
 
2011-06-20 02:40:16 PM

chuckufarlie: GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: That is why I put him on my ignore list. I think that his brain is fried. He also lies, as you pointed out.

I guess part of the problem I have with him is that I initially trusted him -- he SOUNDED reasonable at first. Over time, I have come to realize that he is simply a time-waster, who won't criticize ANYTHING on "his team" but will pick the tiniest of nits with anyone he sees as not on his team. I think I fold my annoyance with myself for not noticing what a douche he is for quite a while into my annoyance with him for being a douche.

He has nothing to add and any conversation with him is a waste of time. I will admit that at times, I find his stupidity hilarious and read a few of his posts for that reason. Of all of the delusional warmers, he might be the worst of the lot.



nicksteel: Those who attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable are in fact making an understandable, though primitive, response. The mosquito stings so you slap the mosquito, the apple is sour so you fling it into the bushes, someone reeks of body odor while attempting to kiss you and you give them a shove. Push it away, the child's Weeners to something offending, with no further thought about repercussions. Adults, in human society, are supposed to be logical, entertain facts, digest, discuss, and conclude. They most often do none of this, but simply react, as a child, to the offending substance of message, rejecting it. These are not leaders of men, as this type of reaction makes them scarcely suitable for any life but swinging from trees, but as Internet access is granted to anyone, they write email and post their simplistic reactions on message board. "Go away, you're crazy, I don't want to hear it", they cry, and when the shift occurrs will be found huddled in some corner making these demands still.
 
2011-06-20 06:34:53 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Yowch. You mean you're completely ignorant of any of the evidence behind attribution of the recent warming trend?


No, I want YOU to state something so I can snipe at it. You like playing it the other way around, and it's time to switch.
 
2011-06-20 06:48:05 PM

Damnhippyfreak: You mean you're completely ignorant of any of the evidence behind attribution of the recent warming trend? I mean, if you haven't read enough to even be aware of the the mere existence of said lines of evidence, how are you beginning to evaluate their worth? A likely answer is that you haven't even done the superficial amount of investigation required - yet another bit of evidence that you're approaching this topic irrationally.
. . .
You may have previously seen this diagram from the IPCC TAR:


THIS is why you remind me of a "Used Argument Salesman." Quite simply, you are NOT being honest, and are being DIShonest in the snarkiest, least polite way possible -- which, to me, is being dishonest about your intentions. If you were screeching "fundamentalist, creationist, blah, blah, woof, woof," it would be more honest. Pretending to be fair and unbiased while being viciously, lyingly biased is, well, just plain UGLY. Congratulations.

And, what I mean HERE, is your utterly fake and lying implications that I have read nothing. And then, later, you prove that you know your previous comments were dishonest when you say "You may have previously seen this diagram from the IPCC TAR:"

You will cease this kind of shiat immediately if you wish to converse with me. If being the tight-arsed weasel sniping from the bushes is all you're after, that might not matter to you. But, in case I haven't made myself clear enough already, cut out this underhanded bullshiat, and we can have a reasonable conversation. Since you can do a passable job of faking a reasonable conversation, I will claim that it is in your range to HAVE such a conversation. Besides, you probably won't need as many showers, and will save energy.
 
2011-06-20 07:32:48 PM

Damnhippyfreak: For instance, I didn't get into how we know that the increase in greenhouse gases is anthropogenic in origin. However, given you weren't even aware of the above basics, we probably won't get that far ;)


By the isotope balance... yeah, imagine that. On the other hand, that shows combustion products versus other sources. I'm thinking it's not as clean as all that, given, say, a reasonable chunk of the Southwest being on fire, and similar. The problems with AGW are in simple assumptions, such as "carbon dioxide from combustion is anthropogenic." A good deal of it, sure, but...

And, that's the way that the standard claims of AGW fail -- they're sort of right, but off a bit, and all of the claims are off in the alarmist direction. That is most especially true when it comes to water vapor feedback, in which a net negative feedback was mistaken for a large positive feedback, due to using a model of atmosphere suitable for planets such as Venus or Mars, but not Earth.
 
2011-06-20 07:37:02 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: You mean you're completely ignorant of any of the evidence behind attribution of the recent warming trend? I mean, if you haven't read enough to even be aware of the the mere existence of said lines of evidence, how are you beginning to evaluate their worth? A likely answer is that you haven't even done the superficial amount of investigation required - yet another bit of evidence that you're approaching this topic irrationally.
. . .
You may have previously seen this diagram from the IPCC TAR:

THIS is why you remind me of a "Used Argument Salesman." Quite simply, you are NOT being honest, and are being DIShonest in the snarkiest, least polite way possible -- which, to me, is being dishonest about your intentions. If you were screeching "fundamentalist, creationist, blah, blah, woof, woof," it would be more honest. Pretending to be fair and unbiased while being viciously, lyingly biased is, well, just plain UGLY. Congratulations.

And, what I mean HERE, is your utterly fake and lying implications that I have read nothing. And then, later, you prove that you know your previous comments were dishonest when you say "You may have previously seen this diagram from the IPCC TAR:"

You will cease this kind of shiat immediately if you wish to converse with me. If being the tight-arsed weasel sniping from the bushes is all you're after, that might not matter to you. But, in case I haven't made myself clear enough already, cut out this underhanded bullshiat, and we can have a reasonable conversation. Since you can do a passable job of faking a reasonable conversation, I will claim that it is in your range to HAVE such a conversation. Besides, you probably won't need as many showers, and will save energy.



If indeed you have read something about this subject, then why did you express such ignorance of it in the first place:

GeneralJim: Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made. And, there is essentially zero evidence that this is the case.


I suggested that you may have have seen that diagram before, but I did not wish to assume you were aware of it's implications or how it fits into the scientific literature or the evidence surrounding climate change. After all, you've apparently been exposed to what the AMO is, and yet you did not even manage to retain its basic definition - you've demonstrated that, in your case, observing a graph does not necessarily mean you understand what it means.

As for your threat of ignoring me, I'll suggest that you're already doing that to a large extent. In this thread alone you've noticeably ignored my pointing out your basic mistake about the AMO, and you've pointedly ignored the literature (and graph) I posted countering your unsubstantiated claim solar activity and temperature. I mean if you're already deliberately ignoring scientific information, you probably have no problem with ignoring people who present it to you, no? Given the aforementioned ignoring of evidence that counters your claims, childish insults, and tantrum throwing when the problems with your posts are pointed out to you, your . call for "reasonable conversation", while welcome, rings hollow. If you wish to have a "reasonable conversation", I highly suggest you start providing one yourself.
 
2011-06-20 07:50:07 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: For instance, I didn't get into how we know that the increase in greenhouse gases is anthropogenic in origin. However, given you weren't even aware of the above basics, we probably won't get that far ;)

By the isotope balance... yeah, imagine that. On the other hand, that shows combustion products versus other sources. I'm thinking it's not as clean as all that, given, say, a reasonable chunk of the Southwest being on fire, and similar. The problems with AGW are in simple assumptions, such as "carbon dioxide from combustion is anthropogenic." A good deal of it, sure, but...

And, that's the way that the standard claims of AGW fail -- they're sort of right, but off a bit, and all of the claims are off in the alarmist direction. That is most especially true when it comes to water vapor feedback, in which a net negative feedback was mistaken for a large positive feedback, due to using a model of atmosphere suitable for planets such as Venus or Mars, but not Earth.



Alright, here's where I can provide some more details, since you've got some misconceptions here. The isotopic signature of anthropogenic CO2 isn't derived from some property of combustion, but instead the isotopic ratios inherent in fossil fuels themselves. I highly suggest you get the basics down before you start making sweeping pronouncements about this stuff. The key idea you want to look for is the 'Suess effect'. I can pull up some literature for you if you're interested in stuff beyond what a quick google search can provide, but it might take me a bit - I'm in transit right now.

That aside, you, in turn, can provide some details about what you're talking about in your second paragraph. You've obviously gotten this information from somewhere.
 
2011-06-20 07:53:25 PM

Damnhippyfreak: The conclusion that is arrived at again and again is that the current warming trend cannot be accounted for without the inclusion of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as external forcing factors.


Yeah... Using current assumptions. And there's the rub. "Mathematically chaotic." Do those two words mean anything to you? We have, among other factors, just passed through a period of highly intense solar magnetic activity. We (with the exception of the IPCC) know of the cosmic ray multiplier effect of this, and, considering the mathematically chaotic nature of weather and climate, there are probably OTHER multipliers of solar output which add to temperature.

This means that what is passed off as "consensus" science assumes that ANYTHING they can't account for is caused by carbon dioxide, and therefore anthropogenic. That's an erroneous, bordering on stupid, assumption. And, as the sun has recently gone pretty much as low as it gets on magnetic activity, the next decade or two will SHOW that some solar heating was erroneously attributed to mankind. I will enjoy that.
 
2011-06-20 08:03:32 PM

Damnhippyfreak: The important question is whether there the model allows for useful inferences over the domain in which it is intended to work.


Errrr... PARTIALLY. I'll grant that there are very useful functions of a model. Mostly, those functions allow the current hypothesis for climate factor relationships to be tested, easily, against reality. When the model does not predict well, something needs change. That is, some part of the hypothesis is incorrect, and the hypothesis needs to be adjusted, or perhaps replaced.

But, much of "climate science" today is simply mathematical modelling of the climate. When real-world results do not comply with the models' predictions, the assumption of many is that the observations are wrong. The words "model verification" should never appear in climate science. Reality is telling us how close our ideas about climate are -- and, apparently, we still have LOTS to learn.

When model output is used to "verify" nature, and the predictions of the models is being used to at least contemplate massive social engineering -- at the same time that the models are generating error several times the size of the signal they are predicting, NO, models are NOT useful, and are, in fact, flagrantly dangerous.
 
2011-06-20 08:07:32 PM

Damnhippyfreak: For example, I just had to point out to you that the AMO isn't a "60-year solar cycle", something you attempted to talk about as you conspicuously avoided the two strong pieces of scientific evidence I presented.


It is the same duration as, and in synch with, the 60-year solar cycle. I'm thinking there's a causal relationship there.
 
2011-06-20 08:22:44 PM

Damnhippyfreak: If indeed you have read something about this subject, then why did you express such ignorance of it in the first place:

GeneralJim: Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made. And, there is essentially zero evidence that this is the case.


There you go again... I'm not expressing ignorance of it, you weasel, I am taking umbrage with the methodology.

Do you know how they made that? They put together all the factors of which they were aware, came up short of the warming, and assigned the balance to anthropogenic GHGs.

In a recent thread on the Canadian elections, one of you warmtards was posting. In a variant of the ITG, this jackass (Zaffler?) said that he didn't want to show support for any of his riding's candidates, so marked a giant "X" across the entire page of the ballot, to spoil it, as this was "the only way he could think of" to show his lack of support. I told him he should make a write-in of "None of the Above".

Well, dealing with jackasses has its downside, and eventually, he published a copy of the ballot, to "prove" that my alternate ideas for spoiling the ballot were impossible. On the goddam ballot itself was printed "Mark only one candidate, marking more than one candidate invalidates the ballot." And, of course, he couldn't see why it was that I was laughing at him.

Climate science has been this dumb, and I'm pretty sure it's deliberate. I mean, the scientists didn't just drop a couple dozen I.Q. points... I'm assuming. It started out with looking at things in whatever way made the past look as much like the "hockey stick" as possible. One way to do that is to assume that it's ALL GHGs, unless one can prove otherwise. Simple bad science. "There's nothing else I can think of" is a comment on the imagination of the speaker, not reality.
 
2011-06-20 08:23:13 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: The conclusion that is arrived at again and again is that the current warming trend cannot be accounted for without the inclusion of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as external forcing factors.

Yeah... Using current assumptions. And there's the rub. "Mathematically chaotic." Do those two words mean anything to you? We have, among other factors, just passed through a period of highly intense solar magnetic activity. We (with the exception of the IPCC) know of the cosmic ray multiplier effect of this, and, considering the mathematically chaotic nature of weather and climate, there are probably OTHER multipliers of solar output which add to temperature.

This means that what is passed off as "consensus" science assumes that ANYTHING they can't account for is caused by carbon dioxide, and therefore anthropogenic. That's an erroneous, bordering on stupid, assumption. And, as the sun has recently gone pretty much as low as it gets on magnetic activity, the next decade or two will SHOW that some solar heating was erroneously attributed to mankind. I will enjoy that.



Note that the bit in bold is not at all what is being claimed, as if changes due to CO2 are estimated as if it were a statistical residual. This is just not the case, as we also have a good estimation of the contribution of CO2 itself - note that this is where the entire discussion about climate sensitivity comes in.

On a side note, be careful here that you're talk about something being "Mathematically chaotic" it does not mean that it is somehow unknowable, or that useful inferences cannot be made about the system. You might have seen Jon Snow or someone else point out the difference between initial value and boundary condition problems. There's a good discussion of this, and how it relates to climate here. One can use a simple physical analogy - the coin toss. The complexity of the miniscule variations and parameters of what happens during an individual coin flip make prediction of the outcome of said individual coin flip practically impossible - therefore we consider the result of a coin flip, the result of a complex and chaotic physical system, random. These are 'initial value' problems. However, if you look at repeated coin flips, a clear pattern emerges, the 50/50 split, constrained by the broad physical processes present. These are 'boundary value' constraints.

That aside, there's also another issue here in the way one deals with uncertainty. You're right to point out that there are aspects of the climate that we don't fully understand. However, to assume that those aspects that are less understood somehow trump what we do know is something different. The important question isn't whether error exists in climate models - we know that there is. Again, if there was no error, it wouldn't be a model in the first place. The important question is whether there is sufficient certainty in climate models in order to make useful inferences.
 
2011-06-20 08:24:00 PM

Damnhippyfreak: As for your threat of ignoring me, I'll suggest that you're already doing that to a large extent.


Indeed.
 
2011-06-20 08:31:15 PM

Damnhippyfreak: That aside, you, in turn, can provide some details about what you're talking about in your second paragraph. You've obviously gotten this information from somewhere.


Peer-reviewed article exposing math error in current models is available HERE. (new window)
Note that when the suggested correction to the math error is included in the models, they at least sort of accurately predict the present from historical data. Without the corrections, they do not. Awkward.
Descriptions of and discussion about the above article:

0. Modeling Global Warming (Miskolczi Part 1)
4. Models of Greenhouse Effect
5. Greenhouse Effect Physics
6. Greenhouse Heat Engine
 
2011-06-20 08:31:46 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: The important question is whether there the model allows for useful inferences over the domain in which it is intended to work.

Errrr... PARTIALLY. I'll grant that there are very useful functions of a model. Mostly, those functions allow the current hypothesis for climate factor relationships to be tested, easily, against reality. When the model does not predict well, something needs change. That is, some part of the hypothesis is incorrect, and the hypothesis needs to be adjusted, or perhaps replaced.

But, much of "climate science" today is simply mathematical modelling of the climate. When real-world results do not comply with the models' predictions, the assumption of many is that the observations are wrong. The words "model verification" should never appear in climate science. Reality is telling us how close our ideas about climate are -- and, apparently, we still have LOTS to learn.

When model output is used to "verify" nature, and the predictions of the models is being used to at least contemplate massive social engineering -- at the same time that the models are generating error several times the size of the signal they are predicting, NO, models are NOT useful, and are, in fact, flagrantly dangerous.



You do have a legitimate concern here about verifying models, but be careful in how you're applying the idea of falsifiability here. Note that there isn't just one GCM that is used, or has ever existed. They are constantly being refined. As a cautionary example, note that the line of argument that you're using is similar to the same shtick that Bevets sometimes uses - because of Piltdown man or some other past failure or shortcoming, therefore all of natural selection or evolution is invalid. Just be aware that a simplistic view of falsifiability has its shortcomings.
 
2011-06-20 08:44:25 PM

Damnhippyfreak: You do have a legitimate concern here about verifying models, but be careful in how you're applying the idea of falsifiability here. Note that there isn't just one GCM that is used, or has ever existed. They are constantly being refined. As a cautionary example, note that the line of argument that you're using is similar to the same shtick that Bevets sometimes uses - because of Piltdown man or some other past failure or shortcoming, therefore all of natural selection or evolution is invalid. Just be aware that a simplistic view of falsifiability has its shortcomings.


See? Fark you and your "you're Bevets" bullshiat.

The term I like, used by people who have worked on the CGMs, is that the various CGM programs are "incestuous." In other words, however they programmed them, most programmers used the same initial conditions, and many of the same assumptions. Therefore, they tend to err in the same direction. Pointing out one of these massive erroneous assumptions is what Miskolczi did. And, considering how spot-on (by comparison) the models predictions were with his correction, compared with the "standard" assumption, I suspect very strongly that the one error comprises at least 75% of the error of the models involved.

So, naturally, "science" responded by personally attacking Dr. Miskolczi, and DENYING his research had any validity, despite improving model performance to an amazing degree. Why? With the corrections, the models predicted a warming, for DOUBLING carbon dioxide, of 0.24K. This figure could not be used for any political purpose. So, they're sticking with the error.
 
2011-06-20 08:46:01 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: For example, I just had to point out to you that the AMO isn't a "60-year solar cycle", something you attempted to talk about as you conspicuously avoided the two strong pieces of scientific evidence I presented.

It is the same duration as, and in synch with, the 60-year solar cycle. I'm thinking there's a causal relationship there.



Be careful in that the inferences one can make by just thinking about something pale in comparison to what you can achieve with thinking together with physical evidence. You may be relying more on the former, and much, much less on the latter. Be careful that you're not letting your assumptions trump the extant physical evidence. in this case, you may be making up a 60-year solar cycle. And again, that this solar cycle (even if it did exist) would somehow be "most significant" flies in the face of both bits of information (the paper and the graph I previously posted). In addition, the AMO, again, is mostly due to changes in thermohaline circlulation, and due to the way it's calculated in the first place, cannot, by definition, account for the current warming trend.

Again, you really need to get the basics down before you start making broad generalizations about this stuff.
 
2011-06-20 08:51:11 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: If indeed you have read something about this subject, then why did you express such ignorance of it in the first place:

GeneralJim: Actually, I'd say that the issue at hand is whether or not any changes are man-made. And, there is essentially zero evidence that this is the case.

There you go again... I'm not expressing ignorance of it, you weasel, I am taking umbrage with the methodology.

Do you know how they made that? They put together all the factors of which they were aware, came up short of the warming, and assigned the balance to anthropogenic GHGs.

In a recent thread on the Canadian elections, one of you warmtards was posting. In a variant of the ITG, this jackass (Zaffler?) said that he didn't want to show support for any of his riding's candidates, so marked a giant "X" across the entire page of the ballot, to spoil it, as this was "the only way he could think of" to show his lack of support. I told him he should make a write-in of "None of the Above".

Well, dealing with jackasses has its downside, and eventually, he published a copy of the ballot, to "prove" that my alternate ideas for spoiling the ballot were impossible. On the goddam ballot itself was printed "Mark only one candidate, marking more than one candidate invalidates the ballot." And, of course, he couldn't see why it was that I was laughing at him.

Climate science has been this dumb, and I'm pretty sure it's deliberate. I mean, the scientists didn't just drop a couple dozen I.Q. points... I'm assuming. It started out with looking at things in whatever way made the past look as much like the "hockey stick" as possible. One way to do that is to assume that it's ALL GHGs, unless one can prove otherwise. Simple bad science. "There's nothing else I can think of" is a comment on the imagination of the speaker, not reality.



The bit in bold is flat out untrue. In fact, the mere existence of the current research around climate sensitivity and even the analysis underlying the graph I presented earlier renders this statement of yours false on it's face:

i51.tinypic.com

You're basing your argument on misconceptions about the science that, at this point, suggest you're keeping yourself intentionally ignorant of it.
 
2011-06-20 08:54:04 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for your threat of ignoring me, I'll suggest that you're already doing that to a large extent.

Indeed.



The problem is that you're ignoring scientific evidence and the problems with the claims you make, and simply repeat them in the next thread. Again, this is notably similar to how Bevets and strict creationists sometimes argue. Not a good thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report