August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Do you still feel the Pacific decadal oscillation has magically stopped now on your say-so, Gordo?

  2. #2 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Gordy, previous page:

    They appear to have over estimated global warming over the past 20 years.

    Not at all. Global warming includes OHC. Global warming continues as expected. Tropospheric warming has slowed down.

    Tropospheric warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake, itself determined by zonal wind field speeds and ocean circulation.

    As I keep trying to explain, short-term variability in ocean heat uptake won’t make any difference to the centennial-scale warming trend.

    I am past trying to understand why you cannot grasp this.

  3. #3 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    The cool PDO has at least a decade or more to run its course.

    North-West Passage blocked by summer ice.

    http://www.sail-world.com/Australia/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice—yachts-caught/113788

  4. #4 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘I am past trying to understand why you cannot grasp this.’

    I grasp what you are saying, but it all seems unnatural and farfetched so I don’t take you too seriously.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    August 30, 2013
  6. #6 chek
    August 30, 2013

    They appear to have over estimated global warming over the past 20 years.

    *sigh* is it 15, 17 or 20 years. You guys keep changing your story every day or so. The one thing we DO know for goddam sure – it’ll never be the 30 year period which qualifies as ‘climate’.

    Do you ever wonder why that is? Or do you prefer not to ‘over-think’ when ‘surface temperatures’ are mentioned and the similarly mentioned ocean heat disappears into a black hole. One in your thinking processes, and another in the centre of the Earth, never to be seen again.

    Are you even beginning to understand why the ‘mental processes’ (for want of a better term) of deniers are not just worthy of contempt in their superficiality, but dangerous in their over-0eager, corporately-sponsored writing off of reality.

  7. #7 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Gordy

    I grasp what you are saying, but it all seems unnatural and farfetched so I don’t take you too seriously.

    That’s denial. Or more formally, it is argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity, which as we hopefully both know, are logical fallacies.

    When your argument contains one or more logical fallacies, it is invalid.

    Which brings us round to denial!

    :-)

  8. #8 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Same question for you as for Rednoise:

    What *are* you going to do when tropospheric warming resumes?

    I’m confident in stating when, not if, because of the laws of physics and paleoclimate behaviour.

    ~3C per doubling of CO2.

    There’s just no way of getting around it except denial.

    :-)

  9. #9 chek
    August 30, 2013

    There’s just no way of getting around it except denial.

    They can do that.
    They’re proud of it.
    It keeps the New World Order at bay, and maintains the purity of their precious bodily fluids..

  10. #10 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    A few days ago, my son, who turned six last week, was pottering around in my study and asked me why all the wiggly lines go up.

    I lied to him by omission. I told him that the world was slowly getting a bit warmer then asked him to head off to the playroom and let daddy finish what he was writing.

    Quite when and how I will try to explain to him what is happening is becoming an albatross.

  11. #11 Turboblocke
    August 30, 2013

    You should explain to him: it’s good practice for dealing with the deniers. ;-)

  12. #12 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘it’ll never be the 30 year period which qualifies as ‘climate’.

    If we can agree the hiatus began 13 years ago, its within the realm of possibility that temperatures will remain flat for another 17 years.

    BINGO

  13. #13 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Gordo, pop-quiz: what does “decadal” mean?

    Christ you’re a moron. Stop lying.

  14. #14 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘What *are* you going to do when tropospheric warming resumes?’

    I don’t expect that to happen for at least 17 years.

    If tropospheric warming starts up again it might indicate that our modern climate optimum has someway to run.

  15. #15 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU BASE THAT 17 YEARS ON GORDO.

    Did you or did you not just go “I need 30, I have 13 [you don’t, but whatever], so… 17 it is!”

  16. #16 chek
    August 30, 2013

    I don’t expect that to happen for at least 17 years.

    Translation: I have no idea what drives AGW but I pray to baby Jesus ‘(or equivalent) that I’m right based on nothing whatsoever but wishful thinking. I don’t even wanna know what the inevitability of increased CO2 means because I’ve been told to discount it.

  17. #17 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    Well, 13 years + 17 years = 30 years….. climate change.

    Chek I disagree with you and Luke about the cause of global warming late last century. It really had nothing to do with CO2, so your children and grandchildren are safe.

  18. #18 chek
    August 30, 2013

    It really had nothing to do with CO2, so your children and grandchildren are safe.

    Y’know Gordon, the scary thing is that you very likely believe your assurance is adequate.

    Unfortunately you have a whole mess of science going back around 150 years to overturn before your blandishments even enter the realm of being remotely credible.

    I understand that you’re old and washed up and think you’ve seen it all before, but you haven’t. You’re out of your depth, ill-informed and under-educated and being played by people with a lot to lose.

    Your own vanity is all that’s keeping you afloat. Your ability (and Luke’s and Cox’s and Watt’s and Tisdale’s and the whole clown circus to make a case that could possibly set my mind at rest regarding my children and grandchildren, given your displays here over the past months relies on abysmal, second-hand garbage that doesn’t withstand scrutiny by a layman like me, let alone the best available scientific brains.

    I seriously doubt you fully understand the gravity of what’s going on.

  19. #19 Luke
    August 30, 2013

    Well of course you’re confident of the warming resuming based on physics. You’ve signed on and have years supply of Kool Aid.

    But based on physics you never expected the pause, the lack of trop hotspot, evap trends, Antarctica gaining ice either.

    So any pretension at NOW knowing the reasons for this is after the fact. “oh it the fucking OHC and even if the surface isn’t warming well it’s gettin’ down there somehow” – well fuck my diapycnal and isopycnal mixing eh?)

    The powers that be are UNCERTAIN and UNIMPRESSED. They want to take your funding and spend it on middle-class welfare.

    The slavish appeal to authority is losing momentum. Now maybe you’re right – but let’s face it – your bedside manner, fucking ugliness, smarmy attitude, being a bunch of fucking cunts and generally being up yourselves isn’t helping.

    Sack yourselves and put your Mums on.

    I’d love to put you lot on diminished performance. Fucking little creeps – you all need an enema.

  20. #20 chek
    August 30, 2013

    The Luke Collective has nothing but memes and bluster.
    And misguided bluster memes at that.

  21. #21 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-29/global-warming-slowdown-data-sought-in-leaked-un-climate-report

    Can’t you imagine the response from DOLTOIDS … ring ring ring …. “Hello we’re from the Deltoid Blog – and we’re not mental or anything – but we’d like to assure you that there is nothing to worry about with the pause thingy and if you don’t keep going with CAGW we’re going to call you deniers and fuck you up” love the Deltoid bedwetters.

  22. #22 chek
    August 31, 2013

    The powers that be are UNCERTAIN and UNIMPRESSED. They want to take your funding and spend it on middle-class welfare.

    Yeah, yeah so you say.
    But this week they want a Syrian war, and who knows what the week after? My money’s on the never-ending torture of Middle East geo-politics hastening the death of the fossil fuel lobby.

    The Luke Collective and the Oz denier contingent et al are too invested in them to imagine any alternative.

  23. #23 chek
    August 31, 2013

    … and the Lukes respond with weekend journalism about already debunked memes.

    What a fucking joke.

  24. #24 Stu
    August 31, 2013

    you never expected the pause

    Obvious and stupid lie. There is no pause.

    the lack of trop hotspot

    Obvious and stupid lie. There is no such thing.

    evap trends

    Oh do tell cupcake. You have no idea what that even means.

    Antarctica gaining ice either

    Obvious and stupid lie. Antarctica has been doing no such thing.

    Luke, sweetheart, You’re better off just playing stupid full-time like Gordo does. These attempts at actually arguing the points are getting really, really pathetic.

  25. #25 chek
    August 31, 2013

    Deltoid bedwetters.

    Oh lookee here – The Lukes have picked up a Visicunt Monckey meme. I think silly old inbred Chris is too vain and stupid to realise what he’s projecting with his would-be ‘killer argument’.

  26. #26 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Chek – so you don’t think the system isn’t asking what the fuck is going on with pause. Wake up !

    Stu you stupid dick

    There is no pause – so why is Von Storch publishing on it and Trenberth trying to explain it away – why Nature Climate papers on it?

    Glad you agree the trop hotspot doesn’t exist. Don’t point handguns at your foot.

    – you’ve been given a peer reviewed paper on reducing pan evap multiple times – learn to read dick nuts http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487

    And I’m sorry slip of the keyboard – I meant Antarctic sea ice extent too. But Antarctica is gaining http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.pdf

    Stu how long have you been a fuckwit now?

  27. #27 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    No bedwetters was from Neville

  28. #28 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Guys I’ve got money on getting the comments to 4000. 4000 comments baiting lying green-wee piss-weak doltoid fools – so you’ve either got two choices – let me piss on you from a great commenting height or ultimate intellect or help me win the $$. Faustian bargain.

  29. #29 chek
    August 31, 2013

    you’ve been given a peer reviewed paper on reducing pan evap multiple times

    … and the poor ol’ Lukes have been busy trying to imply … something … anything …. but without success. Good to see you exposing what a moron The Lukes are. But Gordon still loves ya, baby.
    Unconditionally, and you know what that means.

  30. #30 chek
    August 31, 2013

    so you’ve either got two choices

    You think there’s only the two choices?
    You and The Lukes just keep puckering up, as you’re wont to do.

  31. #31 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    “Government envoys from around the world will debate the final wording of the summary at an IPCC meeting that starts in Stockholm on Sept. 23. That document, formally the Summary for Policymakers, is designed to be used by ministers working to devise by 2015 a global treaty to curb climate change.”

    lol…..I am busting at the seams to read how real clymat syense explains the mysterious fizzic’sss of the miniscule deep ocean warming.

    IPCC……..der…..ummm……….quick, gimmie another toke on that joint man……

    ok man………..the miniscule deep ocean warming is caused by the proliferation of reverse cycle air conditioners…….mannn…….gimme another toke man…….so as you can see, we are really fucked in the head mann……….we haven’t a faaaarken clue mann…………I mean, the deep ocean warming is pure bullshit anyway mann………hahaha just don’t tell anyone mann…………fuck thats gooood shit mann………hahahaha….yeah mannn…we’ll tell em it’s the air conditioners, ahahaha, BBD and Scepical Sooense will get on board wiff that, hahahaha…..gimme anudder toke mann………

    lol

  32. #32 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    ‘No bedwetters was from Neville’

    Caught that, tah.

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    August 31, 2013

    Fatso, here:

    If we can agree the hiatus began 13 years ago, its within the realm of possibility that temperatures will remain flat for another 17 years.

    and here:

    ‘What *are* you going to do when tropospheric warming resumes?’

    I don’t expect that to happen for at least 17 years.

    If you’re so sure that warming has stopped why are you avoiding my challenge? It’s easy money for you, pas?

  34. #34 Bernard J.
    August 31, 2013

    pas mal

    Dropped a tag over the last…

  35. #35 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    4000 comments baiting lying green-wee piss-weak doltoid fools

    And still no answers to pertinent questions! It’s not surprising that the comment count rises, Luke!

    ;-)

    What is it that is causing OHC to increase simultaneously in all major basins?

    You never said.

    I only ask again as there is no known ocean circulation that could redistribute energy within the climate system and simultaneously warm the entire global ocean.

    So I’m once again puzzled and still waiting for a physical mechanism that might explain the observed change. This being an ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system, which is mainly the world ocean!

    :-)

    This dilemma gets much worse if we’ve “had the 1C and that’s it”.

    A very low climate sensitivity is incompatible with the observed increase in OHC since, say, 1980. Not to mention all known paleoclimate behaviour!

    Which is a headache for deniers!

    Add in the required abrupt change in the laws of physics sometime in the last decade and things get really very strange indeed!

    ;-)

    Windbag! Blowhard! Poseur!

    Hypocrite! Liar!

    Gosh, where will it end?

  36. #36 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    barnturds medication has done little for her/his/it’s coprophagous disposition…….

  37. #37 chek
    August 31, 2013

    SpamKan’s self-unaware fantasy world continues to implode.
    News at 11.

  38. #38 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Chek #29 = squatted to piss – no answer

    BBD #35 also squats to piss – surface isn’t warming – how does the heat increase at depth – its fucking desperate bullshit !

    The science that you fucks hero worship did not predict any of my list of issues What a bunch of clowns.

  39. #39 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    IPCC..OHC ????????? bu..bu..buttttttttt it’s not even measurable mann……..

    IPCC…um..hiatus??…..der…..ummm……der…, gimmie another toke on that joint man……????????????

  40. #40 chek
    August 31, 2013

    how does the heat increase at depth – its fucking desperate bullshit !

    Only to ignorant morons and data deniers like The Lukes.

    The answer is given and referenced in this thread, and you’ve only yourself to blame for the amount of shit you’ll have to wade through to find it.

  41. #41 St. Cyr
    Australia
    August 31, 2013

    Stu said earlier “[t]hat’s where it becomes hard not to simply give up. The sheer mendacity and stupidity [of the deniers] is almost too much to bear.
    Almost. Because that, really, is the entire object of the exercise: yell stupid shit loudly enough, often enough and long enough that sensible people just give up. Hey, it worked for artificially shifting the Overton window in the US, and it is working again now. Enough money and enough useful idiots and people JUST. GIVE. UP.
    I’m not giving up. They are either paid liars or idiot stooges, and at this point the difference is academic.”

    Exactly right – and thanks again to you and others, here and elsewhere, for not giving up.

    Unfortunately, reality is on our side (or to put it more accurately, we are on the side of reality!) and it is only a matter of time until popular opinion swings to demanding governments do much, much more about AGW and CC than they currently are. I just hope we have the time…

  42. #42 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    The prediction…………Ice Free Arctic, 2013 September 22nd, 2013
    23 days to go……………………

    oooops a daisy…………………..lol

    “and TOOLUKA (NED) retreated to the east towards Greenland/Newfoundland away from Bellot Strait on 20130822

    ””””””””””’ with the opinion that the Arctic ice was finished melting””””””””””””

    and freeze-up would prevent them from reaching the Northwest Passage finish line at the Arctic Circle in the Bering Strait. ”

    lol

  43. #43 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    St. Cry……………….whaaa wah wah

    Have you had a look at all of the ridiculous alarmist failed predictions ?

    The list is substantial and growing sweetie :)

  44. #44 Stu
    August 31, 2013

    Guys I’ve got money on getting the comments to 4000. 4000 comments baiting lying green-wee piss-weak doltoid fools

    Open admittance of trolling. Can this asshat please be banned now?

  45. #45 St. Cyr
    Australia
    August 31, 2013

    For those who brought up the issue of Australian denial above, having been born and raised in one of the big mining states here, I put it down to fear, mainly.

    So even though most surveys show majority support for government intervention in managing CC, the polls have shown for some time that Australians will probably elect to government a group of people who largely deny the actuality or least the extent of AGW and its expected impacts.

    The usual suspects here crow that this is a victory for “common sense”, while ignoring what is currently happening electorally for the US Republican Party, in significant part because of its denial of AGW.

    The future is not bright for any political group that continues to flee from reality, particularly not while in the service of vested interests like mining companies, power generators and conservative media owners – not entities known for their prioritisation of human welfare.

    So whoop it up while you can, those hanging your collective hats on the election of the “right-thinking” Abbott government. You’ll have to forgive me if I indulge in a little pre-emptive gloating about the (unlamented) demise of the neo-con movement – I and the other adults in the room will no doubt be busy dealing with the inevitable results of following these policies for the last 40 years when the nutters finally implode.

  46. #46 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    I want to entertain myself a bit with you Doltoid AGW greenpiss clowns. So can anybody can tell me when CO2 back radiation

    a) heats the air

    b) does not heat the air but the ocean

    c) neither heats the air or the ocean

    d) cools the air or the ocean

    e) heats the space

    I try your best you greenpissers on leper island of nihilism. I will forward the best answer to the next Australian Prime Minister, my friend Tony Abbott. Go on, greenpissers.

  47. #47 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    ‘it is only a matter of time until popular opinion swings to demanding governments do much, much more about AGW and CC than they currently are. I just hope we have the time…’

    Thanks to the hiatus we have plenty of time to ponder how this AGW scam was so successful. In Australia we are turning our backs on the whole shoddy mess and the next PM is on record as saying ‘the science of global warming is crap’.

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    It really had nothing to do with CO2, so your children and grandchildren are safe.

    And as certain parties said a few decades ago – even after they had strong evidence to the contrary and privately acknowledged it to be strong – all of these lung cancers and emphysemas really had nothing to do with tobacco use, so your children and grandchildren are safe to continue smoking.

    Saying it doesn’t change the real world consequences.

  49. #49 St. Cyr
    Australia
    August 31, 2013

    el gordo @ 47 – way ahead of you, sunshine. See my post @ 45.

    It’s unsporting of me, I know, but I occasionally amuse myself by imagining the looks on your faces when the chickens come home to roost – until I remember that the rest of us will also be paying the price of your idiocy for a long time.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    Glad you agree the trop hotspot doesn’t exist.

    DuKE Luke is reduced to verballing another commenter. I seem to remember he ended up at that point on the last thread a few years ago. Signs of desperation – never mind the obvious bad faith?

  51. #51 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    ‘the polls have shown for some time that Australians will probably elect to government a group of people who largely deny the actuality or least the extent of AGW and its expected impacts.’

    That’s true and its because they are more sceptical. The warmists overplayed the catastrophe angle, which seemed like a good idea at he time.

    The ‘Methane Bomb’ turned people off.

  52. #52 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    @BBD clymax clown

    Your answer to the 8th repetition of my first climatology lesson for Doltoid CAGW leper island of nihilism inhabitants:

    “Repetition 8 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.”

    was partly correctly answered by you when you said:

    “the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    Indeed you are correct.”

    Bravo, of course I am correct you fool and poor pupil. Why did it take 8 repetitions that you admitted to have understood such self-evident implicity? Explain, Doltoid morons?

    Why is BBD greenpiss the only Doltoid leper island inhabitant who HAS understood my climatology lesson 1 for you? Explain, Doltoid AGW clowns!

    But after BBD’s “Indeed you are correct” follows an incredible dirt of his crap ideology logical fail delusion:

    Which is why all the GAT reconstructions, including satellite TLT, have error bars indicating the range of uncertainty!

    What you are having trouble grasping is that the entirely different instruments and methodology used to produce the satellite TLT reconstructions *validate* the surface gridded temperature datasets.

    If the surface T reconstructions were borked, it would show up in the comparison with the satellite reconstructions of TLT.

    And it doesn’t.

    They are in very close agreement.

    BBD idiot: why on Earth do you assume that temperature readings anywhere on the planet reflect CO2 warming? TEMPERATURE READINGS REFLECT THE INFLUENCE OF THE SUN ON EARTH, YOU IDIOT.

    BUT YOUR ASSERTION THAT IT IS IN PART DUE TO CO2 HAS TO BE SHOWN BY YOUR CRAP LEPER SCIENCE, WHICH IS UNABLE TO DO SO. Fuck off from this blog. Enough is enough, you moron.

  53. #53 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    Kevin Trenberth, your crap science pope, stated in an e-mail:

    “Where the heck is global warming?”

    I have given him the answer: “Nowhere, stupid, it was never there.”

  54. #54 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    ‘I occasionally amuse myself by imagining the looks on your faces when the chickens come home to roost ‘

    I take global cooling much more seriously…. there is nothing amusing about a tipping point.

  55. #55 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    My friends in Wagga Wagga in Australia have forwarded to me an interesting local weather observation:

    During and after rainfalls the air temperatures decreased in Wagga Wagga, as compared to temperature readings during spells of sunshine. This temperature difference in Wagga Wagga is obviously not due to anthropogenic CO2.

    Is anybody of the CAGW Doltoids in the position to confirm

    a: that the observations of my friends in Wagga Wagga are correct?

    b: that the Doktoids have understood that anthro CO2 has no role in the observed temperature differences?

    Now, Doltoid AGW clowns, show that you are a little bit better than to just only write leper sciencoid crap.

  56. #56 adelady
    August 31, 2013

    Now, Doltoid AGW clowns, show that you are a little bit better than to just only write leper sciencoid crap.

    This is a bit rich coming from the one who confused GIS with GISS on the previous page of comments.

    (Yeah, yeah, I know it was probably a typo, but it was hilarious.)

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    Sack yourselves and put your Mums on.

    My Mum already called you out and you had nothing to say.

    I’d love to put you lot on diminished performance. Fucking little creeps – you all need an enema.

    Sigh. All together now…

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    Well of course you’re confident of the warming resuming based on physics.

    And you’re apparently denying basic physics…good luck with that long term.

    But based on physics you never expected the pause, the lack of trop hotspot, evap trends, Antarctica gaining ice either.

    It would be astonishing, except that we already know you are here to disseminate crap “thinking” and dodgy “facts”.

    The “lack of trop hotspot” which you insist on framing in misleading terms after correction, thereby revealing that you are intent on misleading, simply isn’t established as even you recently acknowledged. Because it isn’t established, it’s a category error to argue that it “wasn’t expected”. You call yourself a scientist? It is to laugh. Are you like Jo Nova’s partner David Evans bignoting himself as a “rocket scientist” because he did Electrical Engineering and claimed it was a hard science?

    “The pause” is exactly the kind of thing that’s expected in a noisy system with an underlying warming trend. That expectation is driven by a straightforward engineering understanding of signal analysis completely independent of climate science. And it’s clear that the climate system is “noisy” with respect to the anthropogenic forcing signal. So you don’t even need “physics” for that expectation to arise. Again your logic is fallacious. Bit of a habit with you, isn’t it?

    Furthermore, the debate in the climate science literature is about the specific causes of this specific “pause”, and if you’re complaining that this specific “pause” wasn’t expected and that this means … well, something you haven’t quite got around to clearly elucidating but seems to be pretty much to correspond with the desires of various schools of climate science denialism, then you’re an even greater fool and even less of a scientist than you have made yourself out to be thus far. Predictions over those kinds of timescales are (a) much much harder than longer term predictions (see: noisy signal, above) and (b) known to be far more likely to be inaccurate based on our current level of understanding for very good reasons, and hence are not evidence that the case for concern is ill-founded.

    And “Antarctica gaining ice”? Really, you have legendary scientific understanding (in your own mind) but you’re that sloppy, and sloppy in ways that just happen to echo common denialist memes? Did you mean land ice or sea ice? Volume/mass or area or extent? Over what kind of timeframe? I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume this time you’re referring to commonly accepted evidence which shows that land ice volume is decreasing and sea ice area is increasing over the last few decades. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen expectations – ironically based in part on models – that the sea ice increase might occur during some periods of a long term global warming event. And once more you’ve taken a complex phenomenon, pointed to something you allege “wasn’t expected”, ignored what level of understanding we have of the factors that contributed to it (e.g. the discussion of the papers over the last 10 years at the bottom of this page) and tried to use it to imply that it means the case for concern is unwarranted.

    But you have even more fundamental issues than all of those. You’re apparently trying to pretend there’s uncertainty about the basics of the climate system by pointing to less basic areas where the understanding is less solid. I shouldn’t have to point out that this is (a) not a scientific mindset, hence more evidence suggesting that you misrepresented yourself as a scientist, (b) fallacious, and (c) precisely how paid propagandists try to mislead the public into thinking that the case for concern and action is dodgy.

    And it’s even worse than that! Most tellingly, on ice you focused on the splinter and missed the log. The dramatic Arctic sea ice volume decline was almost entirely unexpected, just as you assert the Antarctic [sea] ice increase was. And the decline in the Arctic is far larger than the increase in Antarctic sea ice. What on earth would motivate you to focus on the relatively small ice increase at one pole – where it’s been known for quite some time that the dynamics are reasonably complex – and miss the dramatic decrease at the other? Is it entirely a coincidence that everything you choose to focus on can be spun (at least to less informed readers) to suggest that the case for concern is overblown, and the things that you dismiss or attempt to distract from reinforce the case for concern? It is purely chance that leads you to highlight uncertainties over the specific path of evolution of the climate system, but fail to point out the clear and basic errors (and their implications) promulgated by people like el gordo and cohenite?

    Methinks not.

    And this is really what it’s about, one suspects. For all of your squawking about “issues” over the course of several thousand comments, you have steadfastly refused to demonstrate what impact your “issues” have on the case for concern, and have done your damnedest to be unscientific about it by trying to focus away from what (and how much) we know. If we use car safety as an analogy, your squawking is like claiming that because we can’t predict accurately enough just which boulder will finally stop the car that drives off the road down a steep rock strewn incline will end up, that we should probably not bother spending money on a guardrail or on improving the safety standards required of car manufacturers…

    So, given that you clearly aren’t a scientist and you’re just not here for the hunting, anyone wanna bet that your squawking level will show a dramatic decline right after the election? Or is the timing of your one-eyed barrage a coincidence too?

  59. #59 Stu
    August 31, 2013

    Freddy, you’re not even coherent anymore.

    More thorazine.

  60. #60 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    Lotharsson greenpiss ideologist and CAGW leper island inhabitant, your unscientific “comment” of crap which you repeat every day as your personal crap prayer, must be discarded due to: it’s all infection …

    #58
    Lotharsson

    August 31, 2013
    Well of course you’re confident of the warming resuming based on physics.

    And you’re apparently denying basic physics…good luck with that long term.

    But based on physics you never expected the pause, the lack of trop hotspot, evap trends, Antarctica gaining ice either.

    It would be astonishing, except that we already know you are here to disseminate crap “thinking” and dodgy “facts”.

    The “lack of trop hotspot” which you insist on framing in misleading terms after correction, thereby revealing that you are intent on misleading, simply isn’t established as even you recently acknowledged. Because it isn’t established, it’s a category error to argue that it “wasn’t expected”. You call yourself a scientist? It is to laugh. Are you like Jo Nova’s partner David Evans bignoting himself as a “rocket scientist” because he did Electrical Engineering and claimed it was a hard science?

    “The pause” is exactly the kind of thing that’s expected in a noisy system with an underlying warming trend. That expectation is driven by a straightforward engineering understanding of signal analysis completely independent of climate science. And it’s clear that the climate system is “noisy” with respect to the anthropogenic forcing signal. So you don’t even need “physics” for that expectation to arise. Again your logic is fallacious. Bit of a habit with you, isn’t it?

    Furthermore, the debate in the climate science literature is about the specific causes of this specific “pause”, and if you’re complaining that this specific “pause” wasn’t expected and that this means … well, something you haven’t quite got around to clearly elucidating but seems to be pretty much to correspond with the desires of various schools of climate science denialism, then you’re an even greater fool and even less of a scientist than you have made yourself out to be thus far. Predictions over those kinds of timescales are (a) much much harder than longer term predictions (see: noisy signal, above) and (b) known to be far more likely to be inaccurate based on our current level of understanding for very good reasons, and hence are not evidence that the case for concern is ill-founded.

    And “Antarctica gaining ice”? Really, you have legendary scientific understanding (in your own mind) but you’re that sloppy, and sloppy in ways that just happen to echo common denialist memes? Did you mean land ice or sea ice? Volume/mass or area or extent? Over what kind of timeframe? I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume this time you’re referring to commonly accepted evidence which shows that land ice volume is decreasing and sea ice area is increasing over the last few decades. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen expectations – ironically based in part on models – that the sea ice increase might occur during some periods of a long term global warming event. And once more you’ve taken a complex phenomenon, pointed to something you allege “wasn’t expected”, ignored what level of understanding we have of the factors that contributed to it (e.g. the discussion of the papers over the last 10 years at the bottom of this page) and tried to use it to imply that it means the case for concern is unwarranted.

    But you have even more fundamental issues than all of those. You’re apparently trying to pretend there’s uncertainty about the basics of the climate system by pointing to less basic areas where the understanding is less solid. I shouldn’t have to point out that this is (a) not a scientific mindset, hence more evidence suggesting that you misrepresented yourself as a scientist, (b) fallacious, and (c) precisely how paid propagandists try to mislead the public into thinking that the case for concern and action is dodgy.

    And it’s even worse than that! Most tellingly, on ice you focused on the splinter and missed the log. The dramatic Arctic sea ice volume decline was almost entirely unexpected, just as you assert the Antarctic [sea] ice increase was. And the decline in the Arctic is far larger than the increase in Antarctic sea ice. What on earth would motivate you to focus on the relatively small ice increase at one pole – where it’s been known for quite some time that the dynamics are reasonably complex – and miss the dramatic decrease at the other? Is it entirely a coincidence that everything you choose to focus on can be spun (at least to less informed readers) to suggest that the case for concern is overblown, and the things that you dismiss or attempt to distract from reinforce the case for concern? It is purely chance that leads you to highlight uncertainties over the specific path of evolution of the climate system, but fail to point out the clear and basic errors (and their implications) promulgated by people like el gordo and cohenite?

    Methinks not.

    And this is really what it’s about, one suspects. For all of your squawking about “issues” over the course of several thousand comments, you have steadfastly refused to demonstrate what impact your “issues” have on the case for concern, and have done your damnedest to be unscientific about it by trying to focus away from what (and how much) we know. If we use car safety as an analogy, your squawking is like claiming that because we can’t predict accurately enough just which boulder will finally stop the car that drives off the road down a steep rock strewn incline will end up, that we should probably not bother spending money on a guardrail or on improving the safety standards required of car manufacturers…

    So, given that you clearly aren’t a scientist and you’re just not here for the hunting, anyone wanna bet that your squawking level will show a dramatic decline right after the election? Or is the timing of your one-eyed barrage a coincidence too?

    When will you stop to write such insane rubbish crap? Piss off from this blog!

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    Meds, Freddy. Take them. Berendaneke implores you.

  62. #62 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    Some interesting points Loth.

  63. #63 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    No Atlantic hurricanes, quietest its been in 11 years.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-30/no-atlantic-hurricane-by-august-in-first-time-in-11-years.html

    This is not what we expected in a warmer world.

  64. #64 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    Here is what the EPA says about UHI:

    Heat island refers to urban air and surface temperatures that are higher than nearby rural areas. Many cities and suburbs have air temperatures that are 2 to 10 Fahrenheit (1 to 6 Celsius) warmer than the surrounding natural land cover.

    Figure 1 shows a city’s heat island profile. It demonstrates how urban temperatures are typically lower at the urban-rural border than in dense downtown areas. The graphic also show how parks, open land, and bodies of water can create cooler areas].

    The remotely sensed image of Sacramento, California in Figure 2 illustrates the heat island phenomenon. In the aerial photo (left), the white areas, mostly rooftops, are about 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius) and the dark areas, primarily vegetative areas or water, are approximately 85-96 degrees Fahrenheit (29-36 degrees Celsius).

    Figure 2. Thermally-sensed image of Sacramento. (Source: U.S EPA) Enlarged

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/urban_heat_island_could_it_account_for_most_warming_attributed_to_agw/

  65. #65 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    I carefully scanned Lotharsson’s long and well written post. Alas no answers and more verballing.

    So I post peer reviewed mainstream journal literature, IPCC authors and it’s a denialist meme. Faarkkk !

    It’s a sceptic trick – wreally?

    Could also be that there’s a mutha-fucka load of information we don’t have and theory is wrong.

    Do you think we’ll get to 4000 comments !

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    I carefully scanned Lotharsson’s long and well written post.

    And then you retreated to “argument by handwaving failure to rebut”, which has been one of your mainstays.

    …and more verballing.

    Which, in a massive coincidence I’m sure, you were unable to demonstrate.

  67. #67 Jeff Harvey
    August 31, 2013

    Berendaneke appears to think he is the new moderator at Deltoid. How many times has thus fruitcake ordered people to stop writing here? I hope Tim cottons on to this and finally bans this creep. But in the meantime, he’s a bit of comic relief really. His constant referral to a ‘CAGW leper colony’ reflects some sort of morbidly sick humor. Still, someone is as plainly bonkers are Berendaneke does add a bit entertainment value here. I loved it when he described his ‘friend’ Freddy – in all likelihood his alter ego – as ‘estimated’ (he meant esteemed). That one had me on the floor.

  68. #68 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    It was well written, Loth, although it might be improved with some dot points and a sprinkling of humour.

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    Could also be that there’s a mutha-fucka load of information we don’t have and theory is wrong.

    No! (And that’s based on making allowances for your usual horribly unscientific sloppiness of expression).

    We have sufficient bounds from the evidence at hand to say that “the theory” is almost certainly roughly right over climate scale periods of time, and this consists of multiple consilient lines of evidence. It is extremely unlikely – almost to the point of head in the sand wishful thinking – to think that we’ve missed something big enough to make a massive difference, or that the multiple lines of evidence all happen to point us in the wrong direction.

    There are certainly a whole bunch of areas of climate science where the current opinion hasn’t solidified into a consensus, or where the consensus that exists is based on fairly thin evidence. In these areas more evidence is rather likely to change the picture. But this doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about in the quote above.

    Furthermore, if we’re talking about policy you always have to make policy with the evidence you have (even as you decide that more information would be even better). And when the evidence is enough to show a serious case for concern you would be extremely dumb (Hi Mr. Abbott!) to delay action on the basis that “despite intensive efforts over many decades, we might have missed something enormous” – and even more so when we already know enough to know that acting sooner rather than later is both cheaper and more effective.

  70. #70 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Not really. What’s to rebut. You believe in predictions which don’t seem to be working out and are happy to get significant anomalies persist without explanation. Unlike El Gordo I see AGW as a significant risk. But how much? How does one play that off against many other deserving needs for research and investment.

  71. #71 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    When the temperatures stopped rising they made up the hotspot theory, but they failed to find it.

    They then suggested the missing heat was in the deep oceans and one day it will come back to haunt us, but that was taking too long to manifest.

    Just in time they discovered that ENSO is a major driver in dampening down temperatures and probably (even though they didn’t mention it) produced most of the warming of late last century.

  72. #72 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    So that sufficient bounds is 1.5c to 5.8C – faaaarrrkkk !

    ” you always have to make policy with the evidence you have”

    they have – it ain’t good ENOUGH. So team cancelled.

    The science sloppiness is the inability to frame a science discussion from you fucktards – and all we get is “deniers”, verballing, appeals to authority. Doesn’t work anymore.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    You believe in predictions which don’t seem to be working out…

    Really? Which ones do I believe in?

    You haven’t been precise enough in your discussion to elucidate this, and in particular you haven’t shown any understanding of the timescales over which predictions are and are not valid, or the confidence intervals associated with them. Instead you have firmly placed your foot in your mouth with crude simplifications like “the models are FALSIFIED!1!!!!1!!!”, and a tendency to ignore all of the other evidence behind the case for concern. And these behaviours are essentially what caused objections to your first few comments here, so you’ve apparently picked up precisely nothing from all the feedback you’ve had.

    I see AGW as a significant risk. But how much?

    As far as I can see none of your “issues” have a strong bearing on the risk assessment over climatic time scales, and you have assiduously and strenuously avoided tackling the linkage between the full set of evidence and the case for concern whilst playing up areas of uncertainty – but only in one direction.

    That’s a good way to get a really poor answer to your question. Surely you can do better than that?

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    So that sufficient bounds is 1.5c to 5.8C – faaaarrrkkk !

    Yes, a thousand times, yes.

    Because we’re talking about risk management. In risk management you don’t get to cross your fingers and hope that you get the best case when you roll the dice. And risk management says that you have to deal with the possibility of even one of the worst cases turning up.

    The fact that you can’t rule out a 5.8C ECS with any reasonable confidence – after many decades of trying to narrow the bounds – is horrifying because the consequences of business per usual with that kind of sensitivity are almost unimaginably bad. Even if we restrict ourselves to the most likely range of 2-4.5C, the fact that we can’t rule out 4.5C is still horrendous.

    And risk management best practices also say that when a particular hazard are too severe to bear – as they are at 4.5C – that you do everything in your power to ensure that they never occur.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    By way of analogy, imagine someone creates a really tasty new foodstuff and seeks permission from regulators to sell it. As part of their evidence they submit research showing that the range of outcomes in the 95% confidence interval of eating a portion of their food once a day for five years goes from relatively trivial health concerns such as the occasional feeling of bloating up to and including a long and painful death.

    Is the appropriate regulatory response along the lines of “we don’t have enough information to form a policy because the range of outcomes is so wide, so you can sell it with impunity until such times as we do” or something like “we can’t rule out unacceptable outcomes with sufficient confidence, so there’s no way in hell you’re allowed to sell it”?

  76. #76 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    Lothie, what will an Australian carbon tax will do?

  77. #77 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    What if the hiatus continues for another decade, will you still hold firm to the idea that CO2 causes global warming?

  78. #78 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    Someone asked me if I felt guilty about jetting around Australia every few weeks.

    I told them, not at all, there is a carbon tax on the jet fuel so that will make the world colder.

  79. #79 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Yes but it’s not an optional food stuff – it’s human society’s current energy generation system, plus agriculture plus ….. and multiple nation states who don’r agree and are in competition. and maybe there are winners – North American/Canada wheat belt and losers Australian sub-tropics?? (maybe)

    And maybe we should have put it all on black e.g. influenza (high risk pandemic) or AIDS or TB or malaria? Or rogue asteroid detection. Why just bed wet over this issue?

  80. #80 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    “Why just bed wet over this issue?”

    co2 extortion = money

    co2cextortion = power

    co2 extortion = control

    extortion

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    What if the hiatus continues for another decade, will you still hold firm to the idea that CO2 causes global warming?

    Yes, unless the evidence indicates otherwise. (The evidence for CO2 causing global warming is NOT simply “no hiatuses beyond a certain length”.)

    Heck, you yourself are arguing for 60 year cycles saying they’re about to cause cooling for a decade or more, so another decade is entirely consistent with global warming according to your own model. Do you realise you appear to be arguing against yourself?

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    Yes but it’s not an optional food stuff…

    …which isn’t germane to the analogy, and which you seem to be using as an excuse to dismiss it rather than deal with it.

    Noted.

    …it’s human society’s current energy generation system, plus agriculture plus…

    Yep, and that makes it worse. It’s more likely that human-usable agricultural output will suffer than improve under climate change. It’s foolishness to say that “energy generation is necessary, therefore we must keep generating it the way we historically did even if it kills us”. History is replete with examples of wising up and figuring out a better way to do things that are considered essential.

    I also seem to remember the Canadian soil is crap for wheat – and for an awful lot of human agriculture. The idea that it will become an massive industrial agricultural powerhouse seems to be more wishful thinking than anything. When climatic zones shift geographically, they don’t take the soils and environment with them, so things that used to grow in the climatic zone when it was “over here” don’t necessarily grow as well in the zone now that it’s “over there”.

    The argument that “maybe there will be more winners than losers”, again, is rank stupidity from a risk management perspective, because the range of likely outcomes also includes “there may be very few wins and an awful lot of loss”.

    You simply can’t make the risk go away by pretending that only one end of the risk distribution exists.

    And maybe we should have put it all on black…

    Nope. That’s a failure of risk management too, and I don’t see anyone advocating that.

    Why just bed wet over this issue?

    Disregarding your attempting framing, I don’t know anyone who is doing that. We have to deal with multiple issues at once. None of the other issues make this one go away. Never mind that this one potentially makes some other issues way more risky than they currently are.

  83. #83 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    And yes!

    Luke STILL hasn’t answered the question about OHC increase!!!

    Instead he retreats into denial! It’s all crap, he yells.

    Because he is pig-ignorant.

    Google Ekman pumping, subtropical gyres, Taylor columns!

    Fuckwit!

    :-)

  84. #84 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    ‘Do you realise you appear to be arguing against yourself?’

    No.

    CO2 continues to rise and temperatures remain flat for 30 years, its a fair indication that the carbon dioxide signal is lost amongst the noise.

  85. #85 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    BTW the blog is still behaving as though somebody (Freddy!) is mounting periodic DOS attacks on it. Runs like cold treacle then 505s or “Service unavailable” message from SB.

    Why am I not surprised that our resident nutter is a script kiddie with a baby botnet?

    It all fits the bill.

  86. #86 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    We are experiencing the same in Oz… new fred tomorrow and all will be well.

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    …its a fair indication that the carbon dioxide signal is lost amongst the noise.

    Which does NOT say that the signal has gone away, nor does it say that the signal won’t inexorably rise above the noise longer term.

    Which is precisely why I said you were arguing against yourself.

  88. #88 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    But we don’t talk about any other issues do we? Let’s bedwet about killer asteroids.

    “there may be very few wins and an awful lot of loss” – why? that’s simply framing? Perhaps there will vast areas of the northern hemisphere made available for agriculture.

    Why adopt an alarmist meme – WHY coz some fucktard like Jeff has put his shitty GM output plus or minus a barn into his shitty ecology models and produced some …. shit !

    Ekman pumping, subtropical gyres, Taylor columns – and just when we thought BBD was a stupid cunt. Speak up more BBD. How long did it take to get that out of you. And where’s the papers that link that to OHC you fuck-knuckle.

  89. #89 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Lotharsson – for Aussies the interannual and decadal climate variation is massive. Threaten us with droughts and floods. We’ve had 10000s of years of it? Can you find me a climate change signal in there?

  90. #90 Lionel A
    August 31, 2013

    Gordo, pop-quiz: what does “decadal” mean?

    gordolocks may like to also take in what ‘diurnal’ means and go look out what is happening there.

  91. #91 St. Cyr
    Australia
    August 31, 2013

    Karen @ 76 asks “what will an Australian carbon tax will do?”.

    Apparently, what it has done is grown the Australian economy by 2.5% and reduced carbon emissions from electricity generation by approximately 7% since its introduction.

    Note that the tax is designed to work over the long term in changing investment patterns, so should not be expected to change emissions immediately, and a significant proportion of the reduction thus far has been due to reduction in demand for electricity.

    Even so, the tax is pretty obviously doing its job, and without “driving a wrecking ball through the economy” as our Prime Minister-in-waiting has claimed it would.

  92. #92 Lionel A
    August 31, 2013

    and maybe there are winners – North American/Canada wheat belt

    So, have you not noticed what has been happening in the NA ‘Grain Belt’? Hint, droughts in particular.

    Also the terrain north of the current grain belt is not suitable for equally large scale grain production due to the fact that most of the productive soil was scrapped off by glaciation during successive ice ages being deposited further south where the grain belt now is. This is why it WAS so productive.

    It takes thousands of years for the weathering action of ice and carbonic acid in rain, combined with the work of lichens, and then other vegetation to work their magic on exposed rock surfaces to produce fresh arable soil. It takes a long time for the soil structure to become populated with the various organisms which give the soil its ‘life’. A teaspoon-full of good soil can harbour thousands single celled organisms from hundreds of species, all this forming a mini ecosystem of its own. This is why intensive agriculture is so destructive and second growth forest being a poor substitute for the primary that it replaced with the ecosystem at ground level severely impacted by industrial scale deforestation.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    But we don’t talk about any other issues do we?

    Here? (Er…do you know what this blog is about yet?)

    Or do you mean in general? They are most certainly discussed, and policy for most of them is evident. They don’t get as much attention in the public arena because for most of them there’s not a large semi-coordinated propaganda campaign by vested interests trying to turn them into contentious issues (although you can find some earlier discussion on this blog of much smaller scale attempts to do so with DDT on the malaria issue). The asteroid threat is much smaller likelihood than the others, and arguably it tends to get less attention – but even that one is not completely ignored in the public arena.

    Why adopt an alarmist meme…

    Citation needed.

    You’re presuming again, and based on the evidence you’re going Dunning-Kruger on it by stepping way outside of your scope of expertise. It’s most fascinating behaviour, and one is tempted to speculate on your motivation, but it certainly isn’t persuasive. Why do you think your say so outweighs a whole bunch of science and scientists who don’t base their entire opinions purely on your cartoon sketch of how they work?

  94. #94 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    for Aussies the interannual and decadal climate variation is massive.

    Sure. So’s the diurnal variation.

    And…?

    You seem smarter than the average somewhat-contrarian, but you belie it via a habit of citing a random observation and trying to draw some kind of implication without actually joining the dots.

    Threaten us with droughts and floods. We’ve had 10000s of years of it?

    No, it threatens us with a lot more than that. It threatens to change both the expected climate norms, AND the volatility around those norms, AND the frequency of what are now considered rare extreme events. When most of your country is already crap for agriculture and is not liberally endowed with usable excess water (just for starters, never mind the widespread water table draw down and creeping salinity in various places), that is more likely to be expensive or harmful than positive.

    Can you find me a climate change signal in there?

    Why? Do you seriously doubt that humans are forcing the climate?

    Or are you one of those who is foolish enough to cite massive interannual and decadal variations as implying that a forced climate won’t have any impact on us? A pair of 20-sided dice have massive throw-to-throw variation too, but if you bias them by switching to 24-sided dice the average and volatility still go up – and the frequency of results “39 and above” rises from a 1 in ~133 year event to almost a 1 in 10 year event.

  95. #95 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Maaaatttteeee !

    “creeping salinity in various places” in general over-stated

    “widespread water table draw down ” more bullshit and conflicts with salinity – oh fuck didn’t think of that….

    Water table follows the IPO with lag

    The whole Australian rainfall record is a rare event. The average year does not exist. Average = drought + flood divide by 2.

    Meanwhile back on point with our mate Judy

    “It looks to me like the national and international policy makers are expecting a serious treatment of the pause issue, I have shown them one way to approach the issue of the pause in an integrated way. In spite of Michael Mann’s tweeted response to my testimony ‘typical denier talking points,’ the issues I raise are not easily dismissed, and my ideas are out there in the public domain and at least some politicians are paying attention to my arguments. And the recent Nature article on the central Pacific control on global climate adds fuel to my arguments. If anyone can refute my arguments, I would be most interested in seeing this.”

    It’s on – the horses are spooked.

  96. #96 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Is someone launching a DOS attack on this lovely blog. Wish they’d stop it. Fucking annoying.

  97. #97 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    @Lotharsson greenpss activist:

    You seem smarter than the average somewhat-contrarian, but you belie it via a habit of citing a random observation and trying to draw some kind of implication without actually joining the dots.

    Discarded due to missed topic and incompetence

  98. #98 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    I do not attack SB, but maybe BBD

  99. #99 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    3999

  100. #100 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    4000

    Victory

Current ye@r *