ITS THE SUN, STUPID

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > ITS THE SUN, STUPID

ITS THE SUN, STUPID11-02-2016 18:13
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	My latest video explains some of the reasons why it is stupid to blame the Sun for Global Warming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGONXHNx3Q
11-02-2016 22:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote: My latest video explains some of the reasons why it is stupid to blame the Sun for Global Warming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGONXHNx3Q I'm will critique your presentation here. 1) Are you Irish? Completely immaterial but I kept hoping you would get to examples involving Jameson. 2) WHAT MAKES THE EARTH HOT. You needlessly belabored geothermal, incoming particle and tidal force sources of energy as though they were substantial sources to consider. They are negligible, i.e. can be treated as zero...but you did not clarify this. Instead you leave the viewer with an incorrectly downplayed impression of the sun's role in heating the earth's atmosphere/surface. The viewer should come away from this slide realizing that the sun accounts for just a hair under 100% of the earth's surface/ocean/atmospheric warming. Yes, that would run completely counter to the erroneous conclusion you wish your viewing audience to believe, but you did begin your presentation with the claim that you wanted to cover the scientific principles. 3) WHAT MAKES THE EARTH COOL. You claim ice has an absolute albedo of 0.9 but this wording implies a rather flawed and severly oversimplified understanding. First, we don't simply discuss the albedo of a substance. We discuss the albedo of a body in accordance with a set of wavelengths, considering that different parts of the surface contribute varying component values based on the substance and the incidence angle of the incoming set of wavelengths in question. For example, we might discuss the albedo of the earth (a body) across the entire spectrum of solar radiation. In so doing, we notice that the earth's albedo is one value when, for example, the sun is directly over ice, at a slight angle over water, and a sharper angle over forest (i.e. low albedo) whereas the earth has a different albedo a few hours later when it is at a sharper angle over ice and water and directly over a desert and mountains (i.e. higher albedo). Similarly, clouds don't have an albedo of 0.7. In fact, the effect of clouds in far from clearly understood...except in the cases of religiously-induced "certainty." All your albedo values are unknown yet you list them as being certain, and humanity has not yet acquired the means to effectively measure earth's albedo wrt sunlight. Also the oceans don't make the earth cool. They are incorporated into the equilibrium. They, along with 'Land" should be removed from your list. 4) BALANCE OR IMBALANCE. This is the final slide required for any viewer. Although the earth is in equilibrium, your presentation is based on the assumption that it is not. Ergo, with false assumptions you cannot avoid reaching false conclusions. In this case, you selected a false assumption (i.e. an energy imbalance) that will render the desired false conclusion (i.e. the earth is warming). NOTE: This is the slide where you double down on your "physics violation for the gullible", i.e. the magic superphero deity "greenhouse gas" performs the miracle of "thermal radiation slowing" which somehow regulates temperature...in the wrong way... ...and at the same time you pretend to claim that you speak for countless, unnamed "experts." 5) SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES. This will be the final slide I discuss. Here you mention the earth's "climate system" without clearly defining and delimiting what that is. You then allude to a "tipping point" which is intended to instill panic and fear...yet it too is not clearly defined/delimited (it is vaguely described in a non-useful, fear-generating manner). There is no science in this presentation. This is standard, party-line Global Warming dogma. There is nothing in this presentation we haven't heard debunked a thousand times. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2016 23:41
Hank Samler ☆☆☆☆☆ (45)	The slide that makes the Point is from about 8:30 - 9:15: Variations from solar insulation are minimal and not rising. Everything else in the video, however scientific or not, is a discussion of "Why then, are average temperatures rising?" My question: where are These measurements being made?
12-02-2016 02:37
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: 1) Are you Irish? Completely immaterial but I kept hoping you would get to examples involving Jameson.. No, Devonian. IBdaMann wrote: 2) WHAT MAKES THE EARTH HOT. You needlessly belabored geothermal, incoming particle and tidal force sources of energy as though they were substantial sources to consider. They are negligible, i.e. can be treated as zero...but you did not clarify this. Instead you leave the viewer with an incorrectly downplayed impression of the sun's role in heating the earth's atmosphere/surface. The viewer should come away from this slide realizing that the sun accounts for just a hair under 100% of the earth's surface/ocean/atmospheric warming. Yes, that would run completely counter to the erroneous conclusion you wish your viewing audience to believe, but you did begin your presentation with the claim that you wanted to cover the scientific principles. I said at the very beginning of that slide "The single largest source of energy input to the Erath is in the form of light from the Sun .... This makes up 99.95% of the incoming energy to the Earth and most of that is in the optical part of the spectrum." It would help if you were more intent on listening than finding fault IBdaMann wrote:3) WHAT MAKES THE EARTH COOL. You claim ice has an absolute albedo of 0.9 but this wording implies a rather flawed and severly oversimplified understanding. First, we don't simply discuss the albedo of a substance. We discuss the albedo of a body in accordance with a set of wavelengths, considering that different parts of the surface contribute varying component values based on the substance and the incidence angle of the incoming set of wavelengths in question. For example, we might discuss the albedo of the earth (a body) across the entire spectrum of solar radiation. In so doing, we notice that the earth's albedo is one value when, for example, the sun is directly over ice, at a slight angle over water, and a sharper angle over forest (i.e. low albedo) whereas the earth has a different albedo a few hours later when it is at a sharper angle over ice and water and directly over a desert and mountains (i.e. higher albedo). Not my figures, those are available in those scientific literature and represent an average over all conditions and circumstances though I simplified the numbers to save time explaining.(NSICD) IBdaMann wrote:Similarly, clouds don't have an albedo of 0.7. In fact, the effect of clouds in far from clearly understood...except in the cases of religiously-induced "certainty." All your albedo values are unknown yet you list them as being certain, and humanity has not yet acquired the means to effectively measure earth's albedo wrt sunlight. Also the oceans don't make the earth cool. They are incorporated into the equilibrium. They, along with 'Land" should be removed from your list. If they radiate heat energy away (which they do if they have any temperature above absolute zero) then they do help to cool the Earth. Once again proving a little knowledge can be a bad thing but not as bad as a whole lot of ignorance. IBdaMann wrote:4) BALANCE OR IMBALANCE. This is the final slide required for any viewer. Although the earth is in equilibrium, your presentation is based on the assumption that it is not. Ergo, with false assumptions you cannot avoid reaching false conclusions. In this case, you selected a false assumption (i.e. an energy imbalance) that will render the desired false conclusion (i.e. the earth is warming). NOTE: This is the slide where you double down on your "physics violation for the gullible", i.e. the magic superphero deity "greenhouse gas" performs the miracle of "thermal radiation slowing" which somehow regulates temperature...in the wrong way... ...and at the same time you pretend to claim that you speak for countless, unnamed "experts." If its temperature is still rising then it is not in equilibrium by definition. IBdaMann wrote:5) SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES. This will be the final slide I discuss. Here you mention the earth's "climate system" without clearly defining and delimiting what that is. You then allude to a "tipping point" which is intended to instill panic and fear...yet it too is not clearly defined/delimited (it is vaguely described in a non-useful, fear-generating manner). There is no science in this presentation. This is standard, party-line Global Warming dogma. There is nothing in this presentation we haven't heard debunked a thousand times. . "Tipping point" is a scientific term involved in the discussion of the stability of systems. It is defined in the dictionary. How can you say there is no science in the presentation if you haven't watched it all? That is like claiming that the Super Bowl is not over yet because you turned off at half time.
12-02-2016 05:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote: It would help if you were more intent on listening than finding fault It would help if you were to read my comments and understand them rather than knee-jerk a purely defensive response. There was no reason to belabor the other insignificant factors. The only purpose would be to confuse your audience, and we both know why you do that. If you were to not waste your audience's time in this manner, they would have to focus on the sun being the only energy source (of any significance) and they would certainly be more prone to question your final conclusion. You don't want your obviously erroneous conclusion being questioned, so you convolute. DRKTS wrote: Not my figures, those are available in those scientific literature and represent an average over all conditions and circumstances though I simplified the numbers to save time explaining.(NSICD) ...and so you lie to your audience because it is necessary to support your erroneous conclusion. No one knows what any of those partial albedo component values are, much less the overall albedo of the earth. Therefore for you to use fabricated numbers as the basis for your conclusion seals its fate as a completely invalid conclusion. If you want your conclusions to have a chance at being valid, don't regurgitate fabricated numbers as though they are certain facts. Oh, btw, simply calling warmizombie fabrications "scientific literature" does not somehow make them valid. DRKTS wrote: If its temperature is still rising then it is not in equilibrium by definition. ...and as the planet cools it will not be in equilibrium at it seeks its new equilibrium temperature. However, you have just changed the subject. You have not explained the reason for the existence of just such an "imbalance" outside of fluctuations in solar output. Your whole point is that there are other forces that cause an "imbalance." You then just assume the existence of this other-than-solar-fluctuation imbalance. Every time you have attempted to explain, you produce nothing beyond violations of physics. So until you provide an explanation as to why the earth would not be in equilibrium given constant solar input, your conclusion is summarily dismissed. It is you who is required to provide the support for your claims but you just won't. You insist others "believe" your WACKY religious dogma that just assumes all these violations of physics. DRKTS wrote: "Tipping point" is a scientific term involved in the discussion of the stability of systems. It is defined in the dictionary. Great. You think the dictionary is a science textbook. This is from where you draw your understanding of science terms. So "climate" really is the temperature in my car which I adjust with the "climate control" setting. So, from now on, whenever you make an assertion, we need to ask if you got it out of the dictionary. DRKTS wrote: How can you say there is no science in the presentation if you haven't watched it all? I did watch it all. I quite accurately summarized the remainder as standard Global Warming crap that we have all heard so many times that we are more likely to be fooled by a Nigerian banker than by your tired, long-since-debunked party-line dogma. I don't feel inclined to address the bogus references to Venus. That has been addressed so much that the topic is a skeptic FAQ. I don't feel obligated to address your mistaken belief that you somehow get to speak for non-believers of your faith and to declare that they are now strangely accepting your religious dogma. I do not feel it necessary to point out that your justification for this absurd claim is an equally absurd fabricated graphic that no one believes is representative of reality. I also don't think it is necessary to explain how all your claims of somehow accurately knowing average global temperatures are completely bogus, as are your claims that certain years were the warmest "Ev-ah!" I already mentioned that your penchant for pretending to speak for countless, unnamed others yanks the foundation out from under your credibility so I don't need to reiterate it for every anticipated instance. I also mentioned your doubling down on your preferred physics violation of "greenhouse gas" magically "slowing" earth's thermal radiation so it is not necessary to focus on yet another instance in which you claim to speak for "the vast majority of 'climate' scientists" who, by their very non-scientific, subjective consensus make your violation of physics so much more authoritative! I had already articulated my anticipation that your presentation would hinge on acceptance of your faith-based assumptions. You showed how solar output was stable and/or decreasing so your final conclusion of "greenhouse effect" does,in fact, rest on your assumption that the earth is actually getting warmer, which is based entirely on your bogus claims of having divine knowledge of accurate global average temperatures. Your conclusion slide seeks an explanation for Global Warming that is just assumed. People like me who see that the king is naked, that there is no such Global Warming in the first place, are forced to dismiss your explanations of something that apparently doesn't exist. You might as well explain the true rationale for Santa Claus living at the North Pole. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

12-02-2016 12:25
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: It would help if you were more intent on listening than finding fault It would help if you were to read my comments and understand them rather than knee-jerk a purely defensive response. There was no reason to belabor the other insignificant factors. The only purpose would be to confuse your audience, and we both know why you do that. If you were to not waste your audience's time in this manner, they would have to focus on the sun being the only energy source (of any significance) and they would certainly be more prone to question your final conclusion. You don't want your obviously erroneous conclusion being questioned, so you convolute. DRKTS wrote: Not my figures, those are available in those scientific literature and represent an average over all conditions and circumstances though I simplified the numbers to save time explaining.(NSICD) ...and so you lie to your audience because it is necessary to support your erroneous conclusion. No one knows what any of those partial albedo component values are, much less the overall albedo of the earth. Therefore for you to use fabricated numbers as the basis for your conclusion seals its fate as a completely invalid conclusion. If you want your conclusions to have a chance at being valid, don't regurgitate fabricated numbers as though they are certain facts. Oh, btw, simply calling warmizombie fabrications "scientific literature" does not somehow make them valid. DRKTS wrote: If its temperature is still rising then it is not in equilibrium by definition. ...and as the planet cools it will not be in equilibrium at it seeks its new equilibrium temperature. However, you have just changed the subject. You have not explained the reason for the existence of just such an "imbalance" outside of fluctuations in solar output. Your whole point is that there are other forces that cause an "imbalance." You then just assume the existence of this other-than-solar-fluctuation imbalance. Every time you have attempted to explain, you produce nothing beyond violations of physics. So until you provide an explanation as to why the earth would not be in equilibrium given constant solar input, your conclusion is summarily dismissed. It is you who is required to provide the support for your claims but you just won't. You insist others "believe" your WACKY religious dogma that just assumes all these violations of physics. DRKTS wrote: "Tipping point" is a scientific term involved in the discussion of the stability of systems. It is defined in the dictionary. Great. You think the dictionary is a science textbook. This is from where you draw your understanding of science terms. So "climate" really is the temperature in my car which I adjust with the "climate control" setting. So, from now on, whenever you make an assertion, we need to ask if you got it out of the dictionary. DRKTS wrote: How can you say there is no science in the presentation if you haven't watched it all? I did watch it all. I quite accurately summarized the remainder as standard Global Warming crap that we have all heard so many times that we are more likely to be fooled by a Nigerian banker than by your tired, long-since-debunked party-line dogma. I don't feel inclined to address the bogus references to Venus. That has been addressed so much that the topic is a skeptic FAQ. I don't feel obligated to address your mistaken belief that you somehow get to speak for non-believers of your faith and to declare that they are now strangely accepting your religious dogma. I do not feel it necessary to point out that your justification for this absurd claim is an equally absurd fabricated graphic that no one believes is representative of reality. I also don't think it is necessary to explain how all your claims of somehow accurately knowing average global temperatures are completely bogus, as are your claims that certain years were the warmest "Ev-ah!" I already mentioned that your penchant for pretending to speak for countless, unnamed others yanks the foundation out from under your credibility so I don't need to reiterate it for every anticipated instance. I also mentioned your doubling down on your preferred physics violation of "greenhouse gas" magically "slowing" earth's thermal radiation so it is not necessary to focus on yet another instance in which you claim to speak for "the vast majority of 'climate' scientists" who, by their very non-scientific, subjective consensus make your violation of physics so much more authoritative! I had already articulated my anticipation that your presentation would hinge on acceptance of your faith-based assumptions. You showed how solar output was stable and/or decreasing so your final conclusion of "greenhouse effect" does,in fact, rest on your assumption that the earth is actually getting warmer, which is based entirely on your bogus claims of having divine knowledge of accurate global average temperatures. Your conclusion slide seeks an explanation for Global Warming that is just assumed. People like me who see that the king is naked, that there is no such Global Warming in the first place, are forced to dismiss your explanations of something that apparently doesn't exist. You might as well explain the true rationale for Santa Claus living at the North Pole. More bluster, no facts
12-02-2016 15:22
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (141)	DRKTS wrote: My latest video explains some of the reasons why it is stupid to blame the Sun for Global Warming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGONXHNx3Q I disagree that it would be stupid for us to blame solar forcing for global warming, or at least the late 20th century warming. There are quite a few studies showing that global cloud cover has decreased and clouds have a net-cooling effect on the planet. They cool the planet by around 50 W/m2 and warm by around 30 W/m2 according to the IPCC. So a general decrease in cloud cover should lead to net-warming. To put it another way, for every 1 W/m2 that clouds reflect they warm by around 0.6 W/m2. So if clouds reflected 1 W/m2 less solar radiation, that would lead to a net-warming of around 0.4 W/m2. There are a number of studies out there that show clouds have decreased between 1980's to the 2000's and this decrease has caused an increase in solar radiation absorbed by the surface of around 3 to 6 W/m2, giving a net-warming of 1.2 to 2.4 W/m2. Compare that to the supposedly measured surface radiative forcing of 0.2 W/m2 from a 22 ppmv increase in CO2 between 2000-2010 from Feldman et al 2015, and it becomes strikingly obvious that nature is by far the dominant factor.
12-02-2016 15:35
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	One Punch Man wrote: DRKTS wrote: My latest video explains some of the reasons why it is stupid to blame the Sun for Global Warming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGONXHNx3Q I disagree that it would be stupid for us to blame solar forcing for global warming, or at least the late 20th century warming. There are quite a few studies showing that global cloud cover has decreased and clouds have a net-cooling effect on the planet. They cool the planet by around 50 W/m2 and warm by around 30 W/m2 according to the IPCC. So a general decrease in cloud cover should lead to net-warming. To put it another way, for every 1 W/m2 that clouds reflect they warm by around 0.6 W/m2. So if clouds reflected 1 W/m2 less solar radiation, that would lead to a net-warming of around 0.4 W/m2. There are a number of studies out there that show clouds have decreased between 1980's to the 2000's and this decrease has caused an increase in solar radiation absorbed by the surface of around 3 to 6 W/m2, giving a net-warming of 1.2 to 2.4 W/m2. Compare that to the supposedly measured surface radiative forcing of 0.2 W/m2 from a 22 ppmv increase in CO2 between 2000-2010 from Feldman et al 2015, and it becomes strikingly obvious that nature is by far the dominant factor. Assuming this is true what is causing the variation in cloud cover? Could it possibly be a feedback rather then a forcing. We all know the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere changes with tempture as well. As we are all familer with the IPCC reports and the underpinning science behind them so I won't bother explaining why water vapour is not a forcing.
12-02-2016 16:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	spot wrote: Assuming this is true what is causing the variation in cloud cover? Could it possibly be a feedback rather then a forcing. A pointless question until we figure out what is causing the increase in temperature in the first place if it's not the sun. What do you believe is causing the (presumed) increase in temperature? An increase in energy or a superpower miracle that "slows" thermal radiation? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-02-2016 16:14
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	One Punch Man wrote: DRKTS wrote: My latest video explains some of the reasons why it is stupid to blame the Sun for Global Warming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGONXHNx3Q I disagree that it would be stupid for us to blame solar forcing for global warming, or at least the late 20th century warming. There are quite a few studies showing that global cloud cover has decreased and clouds have a net-cooling effect on the planet. They cool the planet by around 50 W/m2 and warm by around 30 W/m2 according to the IPCC. So a general decrease in cloud cover should lead to net-warming. To put it another way, for every 1 W/m2 that clouds reflect they warm by around 0.6 W/m2. So if clouds reflected 1 W/m2 less solar radiation, that would lead to a net-warming of around 0.4 W/m2. There are a number of studies out there that show clouds have decreased between 1980's to the 2000's and this decrease has caused an increase in solar radiation absorbed by the surface of around 3 to 6 W/m2, giving a net-warming of 1.2 to 2.4 W/m2. Compare that to the supposedly measured surface radiative forcing of 0.2 W/m2 from a 22 ppmv increase in CO2 between 2000-2010 from Feldman et al 2015, and it becomes strikingly obvious that nature is by far the dominant factor. The numbers would seem to disagree with you ...
12-02-2016 16:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote:More bluster, no facts Bluster? You clearly never learned how this science thing works. You are the one making the affirmative assertion. I don't know if you noticed but you made a video to present your argument. You are the one who bears the full burden of proof. No one else incurs any such burden by you making a claim. Your words above imply that you believe you have somehow imposed some sort of burden on me and also that you somehow get to judge whether I have met my imposed burden. In short, you have taken the religious devotee's position of bulveristically defending his faith. Science doesn't work that way. You have proven that you are unable to support your claims unless your beliefs and conclusions are already assumed. That's religion, not science. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-02-2016 16:59
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote: Assuming this is true what is causing the variation in cloud cover? Could it possibly be a feedback rather then a forcing. A pointless question until we figure out what is causing the increase in temperature in the first place if it's not the sun. What do you believe is causing the (presumed) increase in temperature? An increase in energy or a superpower miracle that "slows" thermal radiation? . Te he, we have had that disscussion before you should be able to anticipate my answer because you said Im a gulliable warmizombie that has been brainwashed. That's fun but I'm bored of that now so I was hopeing to have a civil disscussion with someone capable of being civil. thanks x
12-02-2016 17:07
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (141)	DRKTS wrote:The numbers would seem to disagree with you ... Saying that the numbers would seem to disagree with me is not really an argument. The idea there has been a signficant increase in absorbed solar radiation due to a decrease in clouds has been covered by various studies. The IPCC's graph above looks very nice, but is it correct?
12-02-2016 17:12
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	One Punch Man wrote: DRKTS wrote:The numbers would seem to disagree with you ... Saying that the numbers would seem to disagree with me is not really an argument. The idea there has been a signficant increase in absorbed solar radiation due to a decrease in clouds has been covered by various studies. The IPCC's graph above looks very nice, but is it correct? The graph represents the latest knowledge (at least as of 2012) of the relative forcing contributions.
12-02-2016 17:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote: One Punch Man wrote: DRKTS wrote:The numbers would seem to disagree with you ... Saying that the numbers would seem to disagree with me is not really an argument. The idea there has been a signficant increase in absorbed solar radiation due to a decrease in clouds has been covered by various studies. The IPCC's graph above looks very nice, but is it correct? The graph represents the latest knowledge (at least as of 2012) of the relative forcing contributions. The graph represents the latest fabricated chart deemed to be most psychologically effective at duping the gullible into believing the dogma, as a matter of increasing the size of the congregation. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

12-02-2016 18:01
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (141)	DRKTS wrote: One Punch Man wrote: DRKTS wrote:The numbers would seem to disagree with you ... Saying that the numbers would seem to disagree with me is not really an argument. The idea there has been a signficant increase in absorbed solar radiation due to a decrease in clouds has been covered by various studies. The IPCC's graph above looks very nice, but is it correct? The graph represents the latest knowledge (at least as of 2012) of the relative forcing contributions. Based on what knowledge? The IPCC's graph shows the forcings dating back to 1750. But no-one was measuring the forcing from changes in cloud cover back in 1750, were they? So how can anyone know that? We have only been measuring that with the advent of satellites in the 1960's and 1970's. And the measurements from the 1980's to the 2000's show a decrease in cloud cover and an estimated increase in shortwave forcing of 3-6 W/m2. Why does the IPCC not take this into account? (I will reference some of these studies in my next post).
12-02-2016 18:11
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	One Punch Man wrote: DRKTS wrote:The numbers would seem to disagree with you ... Saying that the numbers would seem to disagree with me is not really an argument. The idea there has been a signficant increase in absorbed solar radiation due to a decrease in clouds has been covered by various studies. The IPCC's graph above looks very nice, but is it correct? As I asked earlier if we assume that you are correct why is cloud cover changing? I'm not trying to trip you up I am intrested in your thoughts. Because I don't understand what is causing cloud cover to vary.
12-02-2016 18:22
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	spot wrote: One Punch Man wrote: DRKTS wrote:The numbers would seem to disagree with you ... Saying that the numbers would seem to disagree with me is not really an argument. The idea there has been a signficant increase in absorbed solar radiation due to a decrease in clouds has been covered by various studies. The IPCC's graph above looks very nice, but is it correct? As I asked earlier if we assume that you are correct why is cloud cover changing? I'm not trying to trip you up I am intrested in your thoughts. Because I don't understand what is causing cloud cover to vary. Its a complex issue. It depends on many factors but globally the level of cloud cover does not seem to be changing much (more in the north, less in the south). It also depends on different thicknesses, different altitudes and different latitudes different mechanisms. The problem is that the reflective property of clouds (cooling) is similar to the blanketing property of the same clouds. So the effect is smaller than most people think.
12-02-2016 19:34
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (141)	spot wrote:I'm not trying to trip you up I am intrested in your thoughts. Because I don't understand what is causing cloud cover to vary. I don't know. There are many possible drivers of observed cloud cover changes and climate scientists of the present day have not investigated all of it thoroughly and have yet comprehended it all in their understanding. But I am sure that warmists would argue that the decrease in clouds is due to man. Here are some of those studies: http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm (Estimated global forcing of 5.4 W/m2 from 1984 to 2009) http://nml.yonsei.ac.kr/front/bbs/paper/rad/RAD_2005-3_Wild_et_al.pdf (Estimated global forcing of 6 W/m2 from 1991 to 2001) http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf (Estimated global forcing of 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 across all data-sets) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00280.1 (An estimated decrease in global cloud cover of around 1.6%. No forcing given. But based on IPCC's figures a 1.6% decrease in cloud-cover corresponds to an increase in shortwave forcing of around 2.7 W/m2). http://www.xraymachines.info/article/447558667/new-paper-finds-large-surface-solar-radiation-increase-of-4-per-decade-uv-increase-7-per-decade/ http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12251/2014/acp-14-12251-2014.html Quote from paper: Concerning the global solar radiation, many publications agree on the existence of a solar dimming period between 1970 and 1985 and a subsequent solar brightening period (Norris and Wild, 2007; Solomon et al 2007; Makowski et al 2009; Stjern et al 2009; Wild et al 2009; Sanchez−Lorenzo and Wild 2012). Different studies have calculated the trend in Sg [global solar radiation] after 1985. The trend in Sg from GEBA (Global Energy Balance Archive); between 1987 and 2002 is equal to +1.4(3.4) Wm−2 per decade according to Norris and Wild (2007). Stjern et al (2009) found a total change in the mean surface solar radiation trend over 11 stations in northern Europe of +4.4% between 1983 and 2003. In the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Solomon et al 2007), 421 sites were analysed; between 1992 and 2002, the change of all-sky surface solar radiation was equal to 0.66 W m−2 per year. Wild et al (2009) investigated the global solar radiation from 133 stations from GEBA/World Radiation Data Centre belonging to different regions in Europe. All series showed an increase over the entire period, with a pronounced upward tendency since 2000. For the Benelux region, the linear change between 1985 and 2005 is equal to +0.42 W m−2 per year, compared to the pan-European average trend of +0.33 W m−2 per year (or +0.24 W m−2 if the anomaly of the 2003 heat wave is excluded). Our trend of +0.5(0.2) W m−2 per year (or +4% per decade) agrees within the error bars with the results from Wild et al (2009)". Compare the Sg trend of +1.4(3.4) W/m2 per decade from 1987-2002 in Norris and Wild (2007) to the estimated forcing from CO2 of 0.2 W/m2 over a decade: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html It seems that nature is in control to me. Unless man is controlling clouds. Edited on 12-02-2016 20:03
12-02-2016 21:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	spot wrote: I'm not trying to trip you up I am intrested in your thoughts. Because I don't understand what is causing cloud cover to vary. Doesn't cloud cover change naturally? Have there ever been two separate days that have had the exact same cloud cover? Cloud cover, like the weather, is random, per the weather that is random. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-02-2016 22:22
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	One Punch Man wrote: Compare the Sg trend of +1.4(3.4) W/m2 per decade from 1987-2002 in Norris and Wild (2007) to the estimated forcing from CO2 of 0.2 W/m2 over a decade: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html It seems that nature is in control to me. Unless man is controlling clouds. From the abstract of Norris and Wild (2007): Changes in cloud cover cannot account for the trends in surface SW flux since cloud cover actually slightly decreased during 1971–1986 and slightly increased during 1987–2002. The most likely explanation is changes in anthropogenic aerosol emissions that led to more scattering and absorption of SW radiation during the earlier period of solar "dimming" and less scattering and absorption during the later period of solar "brightening." Surely this is indicating that cloud cover has little effect on surface shortwave flux and that the changes in shortwave flux were likely due to anthropogenic aerosol emissions. Aren't Norris and Wild actually saying that the changes are indeed man-made?
13-02-2016 01:01
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (141)	Surely this is indicating that cloud cover has little effect on surface shortwave flux and that the changes in shortwave flux I probably referenced the wrost paper I could have at the end then. The other papers above all show that decreased cloud cover has had a signficant effect on incoming shortwave radiation, between around 3 to 6 W/m2. Even the figures by Norries and Wild show a trend of +1.4(3.4) W/m2 per decade which swamps the "measured" back-radiation from anthropogenic CO2. But you're right, that particular paper does seem to point the finger of blame at humans. The papers at the start before the quote don't blame humans though. The idea that anthropogenic aerosols could have caused the global brightening from the 1980's to the 2000's seems remarkable to me since it is accepted that cloud cover did decrease during that period and the increase in shortwave forcing from that decrease is easily calculated with the IPCC's own figures. Edited on 13-02-2016 01:26
27-08-2016 08:22
StephenS20 ☆☆☆☆☆ (12)	Right, there is no evidence that the sun has provided increased energy to the Earth. The cosmic ray theory simply doesn't hold water. For one, if such a major supernova ever occurred to have rays reach Earth recently, it would have been clearly detectable. Also, as the video says, the rays are absorbed in the upper levels of the atmosphere and minimal rays would even penetrate the heliosphere. For a supernova to have effects on the Earth, it would have to occur exceptionally close to Earth. This has not occurred, and this theory can be ruled out completely. The only possibility that I could think of is manmade Co2...... and also you forgot to mention the feedback loop caused by melting permafrost. This is presumably driven by manmade Co2 causing a warming of the atmosphere, but the melting permafrost causes decomposition of frozen plant matter which creates methane and Co2. This creates further warming, and this drives further permafrost melting which creates even more warming. Given the volume of the permafrost and the amount of frozen material, it may be difficult to predict precisely how much of this could be released. No one knows the exact figure of how much frozen plant and animal matter is frozen in the permafrost.
29-08-2016 02:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	StephenS20 wrote:Right, there is no evidence that the sun has provided increased energy to the Earth. The evidence suggests earth is recieving decreasing amounts of solar energy. StephenS20 wrote:The cosmic ray theory simply doesn't hold water. What is that? StephenS20 wrote: For one, if such a major supernova ever occurred to have rays reach Earth recently, it would have been clearly detectable. My "boolschit" flag goes up whenever I see assertions based on "would have" and "should have." StephenS20 wrote:The only possibility that I could think of is manmade Co2.... Your imagination must suck. StephenS20 wrote:. and also you forgot to mention the feedback loop caused by melting permafrost. Aaah, "feedback loops." WACKY dogma of the scientifically illiterate. Your indoctrinators must be laughing their assses off. StephenS20 wrote: This is presumably driven by manmade Co2 causing a warming of the atmosphere, but the melting permafrost causes decomposition of frozen plant matter which creates methane and Co2. This creates further warming, and this drives further permafrost melting which creates even more warming. There is no "feedback loop." No substance causes an increase in temperature. You've been duped. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-08-2016 06:32
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: The evidence suggests earth is recieving decreasing amounts of solar energy. Then the Earth should be cooling not warming, you just destroyed your own arguments. IBdaMann wrote: What is that? (referring to the cosmic ray theory) Revealing a terrible lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion. IBdaMann wrote: My "boolschit" flag goes up whenever I see assertions based on "would have" and "should have." Let me clear that up, a supernova close enough to create warming of the magnitude seen from the cosmic rays it emitted would create day out of night and irradiate us all. I am pretty sure we would have noticed that just before we all dropped dead from radiation sickness.
01-09-2016 05:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote:Then the Earth should be cooling not warming, you just destroyed your own arguments. You can't show otherwise. Why not? DRKTS wrote:Let me clear that up, a supernova close enough to create warming of the magnitude seen from the cosmic rays it emitted would create day out of night and irradiate us all. I am pretty sure we would have noticed that just before we all dropped dead from radiation sickness. ...or it WOULD NOT have. Thanks for making that very clear. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2016 01:56
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote:Then the Earth should be cooling not warming, you just destroyed your own arguments. You can't show otherwise. Why not? DRKTS wrote:Let me clear that up, a supernova close enough to create warming of the magnitude seen from the cosmic rays it emitted would create day out of night and irradiate us all. I am pretty sure we would have noticed that just before we all dropped dead from radiation sickness. ...or it WOULD NOT have. Thanks for making that very clear. . Your idiotic arguments about semantics do nothing to compensate for your lack of any scientific understanding.
02-09-2016 03:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Surface Detail wrote:Your idiotic arguments about semantics do nothing to compensate for your lack of any scientific understanding. Too funny. So, how do you rate your own "scientific" understanding? How do you rate your own grasp of formal logic? I'm curious. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2016 03:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Surface Detail wrote:Your idiotic arguments about semantics do nothing to compensate for your lack of any scientific understanding. Hey, you're not going to turn right around and try to compensate for your lack of scientific understanding by making idiotic arguments about semantics to Into the Night, are you? Surface Detail wrote:A tip, ITN. The meaning of a sentence depends on the order in which its constituent words appear and their relationship to the other words. For example, while Leafsdude did indeed use the word "absurdity", he never claimed that the absurdity of the argument is a factor. Your English comprehension skills are frankly awful - try to read more carefully rather than jumping to conclusions. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2016 03:29
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: StephenS20 wrote:Right, there is no evidence that the sun has provided increased energy to the Earth. The evidence suggests earth is recieving decreasing amounts of solar energy. StephenS20 wrote:The cosmic ray theory simply doesn't hold water. What is that? StephenS20 wrote: For one, if such a major supernova ever occurred to have rays reach Earth recently, it would have been clearly detectable. My "boolschit" flag goes up whenever I see assertions based on "would have" and "should have." StephenS20 wrote:The only possibility that I could think of is manmade Co2.... Your imagination must suck. StephenS20 wrote:. and also you forgot to mention the feedback loop caused by melting permafrost. Aaah, "feedback loops." WACKY dogma of the scientifically illiterate. Your indoctrinators must be laughing their assses off. StephenS20 wrote: This is presumably driven by manmade Co2 causing a warming of the atmosphere, but the melting permafrost causes decomposition of frozen plant matter which creates methane and Co2. This creates further warming, and this drives further permafrost melting which creates even more warming. There is no "feedback loop." No substance causes an increase in temperature. You've been duped. . Do you seriously not understand the concept of a feedback loop?

02-09-2016 07:23
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: StephenS20 wrote:Right, there is no evidence that the sun has provided increased energy to the Earth. The evidence suggests earth is recieving decreasing amounts of solar energy. StephenS20 wrote:The cosmic ray theory simply doesn't hold water. What is that? StephenS20 wrote: For one, if such a major supernova ever occurred to have rays reach Earth recently, it would have been clearly detectable. My "boolschit" flag goes up whenever I see assertions based on "would have" and "should have." StephenS20 wrote:The only possibility that I could think of is manmade Co2.... Your imagination must suck. StephenS20 wrote:. and also you forgot to mention the feedback loop caused by melting permafrost. Aaah, "feedback loops." WACKY dogma of the scientifically illiterate. Your indoctrinators must be laughing their assses off. StephenS20 wrote: This is presumably driven by manmade Co2 causing a warming of the atmosphere, but the melting permafrost causes decomposition of frozen plant matter which creates methane and Co2. This creates further warming, and this drives further permafrost melting which creates even more warming. There is no "feedback loop." No substance causes an increase in temperature. You've been duped. . Do you seriously not understand the concept of a feedback loop? All put downs - no supporting information from any reputable source - as usual
02-09-2016 12:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Surface Detail wrote:Do you seriously not understand the concept of a feedback loop? Do you really not even understand BASIC physics? Why are you even pretending to post on this forum. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-09-2016 04:17
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:Do you seriously not understand the concept of a feedback loop? Do you really not even understand BASIC physics? Why are you even pretending to post on this forum. I really am posting on this forum (look!). And I understand feedback loops!
06-09-2016 04:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Surface Detail wrote:I really am posting on this forum (look!). And I understand feedback loops! Within the context of "climate" ? I play the electric guitar and I am familiar with the unhijacked word "feedback" but when I start to explain how some warmizombie is violating physics I am quickly told that "Climate's" feedbacks are somehow different, so if you'll explain how they increase temperature then I'm all ears/eyes. Thanks in advance. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Join the debate ITS THE SUN, STUPID:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Red Sun Images in England	8	11-08-2023 22:20
Put This Dangerous Stupid Person Beings Entity Into International Blacklist Please	0	17-07-2023 05:37
Is the sun toxic?	293	23-10-2022 17:21
How stupid is the new king of england as he is letting a Mercedes drive his mother to the dump	0	12-09-2022 17:19
The Recent Floods In Europe & Fire In Frozen America Show How Stupid Their Government Are	1	18-07-2021 20:36