Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (merg

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 07:11:53

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 07:49:05

Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters in Science on the moral hazard of gambling on negative emissions:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scie ... ign=buffer

Their summary:
In December 2015, member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, which aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement requires that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks are balanced by the second half of this century. Because some nonzero sources are unavoidable, this leads to the abstract concept of “negative emissions,” the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through technical means. The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) informing policy-makers assume the large-scale use of negative-emission technologies.

If we rely on these and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be locked into a high-temperature pathway.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Truth about IPCC model global warming projections

Unread postby Ibon » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 08:18:50

KaiserJeep wrote: I would prefer to marinate in the angst of fossil fuel depletion, particularly petroleum depletion, which I view as a real and imminent form of Doom. This is the central theme of PO.com, which most of you ignore in favor of off-topic AGW/CC angst and Doom hysteria, which I believe is overblown reaction to natural changes in surface temperatures, caused by a complex relationship between such temperatures and the solar radiation which varies over centuries due to reasons of orbital mechanics, called Milankovitch cycles.


You seem to enjoy marinating in the AGW/CC debate actually. AGW is not off topic to peak oil because
AGW has always been a consequence of human overshoot enabled by the over consumption of fossil fuels.

As a result of failed mitigation to control our population and consumption AGW actually may become one of the major mitigators. Doing for us what we have been unable to do to ourselves......

Embrace it as one of the levers that can shut off the valve of human overshoot.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Ibon » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 08:33:27

KaiserJeep wrote:To everybody else: Note that I was respectful and asked serious and sober questions, and he returned insults.


It has been noted.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 09:22:30

More than once.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dissident » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 09:41:51

dohboi wrote:Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters in Science on the moral hazard of gambling on negative emissions:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scie ... ign=buffer

Their summary:
In December 2015, member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, which aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement requires that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks are balanced by the second half of this century. Because some nonzero sources are unavoidable, this leads to the abstract concept of “negative emissions,” the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through technical means. The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) informing policy-makers assume the large-scale use of negative-emission technologies.

If we rely on these and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be locked into a high-temperature pathway.


Wow, expecting non-existing technology to provide terraforming scale solutions in less than 50 years. These clowns need to put their crack pipes down.

Before making such retarded projections they should at least have actual working prototypes of such technologies. For example coal power plants that fully sequester their CO2 emissions or artificial trees. Then we would have to worry about scaling them up. As we see with wind and solar power, scaling up ain't so easy.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 09:53:27

dissident wrote:
dohboi wrote:Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters in Science on the moral hazard of gambling on negative emissions:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scie ... ign=buffer

Their summary:
In December 2015, member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, which aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement requires that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks are balanced by the second half of this century. Because some nonzero sources are unavoidable, this leads to the abstract concept of “negative emissions,” the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through technical means. The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) informing policy-makers assume the large-scale use of negative-emission technologies.

If we rely on these and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be locked into a high-temperature pathway.


Wow, expecting non-existing technology to provide terraforming scale solutions in less than 50 years. These clowns need to put their crack pipes down.

Before making such retarded projections they should at least have actual working prototypes of such technologies. For example coal power plants that fully sequester their CO2 emissions or artificial trees. Then we would have to worry about scaling them up. As we see with wind and solar power, scaling up ain't so easy.


Yup. The Paris Accords are a sham and a fraud. I've been saying that since the day they were signed.

This is mostly Obama's fault. He's the one who walked away from the decades of work that had been done to create a binding UN treaty to reduce CO2 emissions, and instead wanted this bastard agreement that allows CO2 emissions to continue to increase.

This isn't "moral hazard". This is an intentional fraud on the part of Obama and the others in the US delegation who pushed for this sham of an agreement that purports to limit global warming to 2°C but actually doesn't reduce CO2 emissions and actually doesn't stop global warming.

Cheers!
Last edited by Plantagenet on Sun 23 Oct 2016, 09:55:46, edited 1 time in total.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 09:54:39

And as of the current state of technology these Coal power plants would probably emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than they would remove.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 11:25:40

It certainly is, at the least, an interesting use of the term 'moral hazard,' which usually refers to some actual real thing that people use as an excuse to allow them to do bad things.

But in this case, massive carbon sequestration is a total fantasy. But the fact that it is being even fantasized about seems to allow it to be used to rationalize carbon emissions far beyond what we should be planning for.

The old military terms snafu and fubar come to mind...
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 11:39:34

But that is the way of humanity. If you think about it it's the rare person who makes or initiates some change. The vast majority of us just poke along, self included.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Ibon » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 15:41:34

Newfie wrote:But that is the way of humanity. If you think about it it's the rare person who makes or initiates some change. The vast majority of us just poke along, self included.


You got only this one shot to live so why just poke along? Many traditions pay homage to death as a reminder to live each day at its fullest. Death sitting on your shoulder whispering in your ear every morning. This is far better than caffeine !
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 24 Oct 2016, 16:41:48

Off topic city verses rural discussion moved over
topic72932.html
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 14:13:58

The IPCC May Have Underestimated Future Warming Trends

A new paper in Nature states that climate models that lean towards a higher level of global warming in coming years align the best with observations of today’s conditions. As a result, the models currently being employed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change might have underestimated future warming trends, and what’s to come for all of us.

Various organizations around the world create models that can be used to make climate change forecasts. They use these models to run standardized experiments, producing a data inventory that the IPCC can cite in its report.

The IPCC panel isn’t actually producing these models itself; it’s simply surveying literature based on work done independently, all over the world.

“That’s really what we’re kind of exploiting in the study, these natural differences that arise from people making different decisions on how to best model aspects of the climate system that are hard to model,” said Patrick Brown, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institute for Global Ecology and co-author of the Nature paper, to Futurism.

Brown gave the example of clouds, as there’s still some debate on how they might respond to global warming. The remaining uncertainty leads to different modeling groups making distinct choices with regards to projected cloud behavior.

“It’s good to have all that out there, and all that published, and all that data available for other scientists to come and look at, and try and figure out ‘why is this model giving this answer but this model is giving this answer?'” explained Brown. “That’s part of what we did in our study.”

Brown and co-author Ken Caldeira worked under the assumption that the models that were best at simulating the recent past would be best at projecting the future. Using those models, their research suggested that warming will likely be around 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit greater that the data in the raw model suggests.


LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby dissident » Sun 24 Dec 2017, 01:56:30

The quote is above is misleading. The IPCC evaluations are systematically biased since their CH4 emissions scenarios and ice melt (hence albedo change) have been grossly underestimating the reality. The latest round finally had a "worst case" scenario that looked more realistic but is still a fixed boundary condition assumption and not an interactive process representation.

Due to lack of computing resources IPCC climate models do not run high resolution interactive land models and ice models. There is a very primitive representation of land ice dynamics. Seabed CH4 emissions are not represented at all. Interactive oceans have really only been used in the last round of the IPCC. But the representation of ocean dynamics is inadequate since the natural spatial scales of dynamics in the oceans are much smaller than in the atmosphere and ocean models thus need very high spatial resolution (and temporal). For example in the troposphere we have synoptic and mesoscale eddies, in the oceans we have lots of small gyres spanning tens of meters to a few kilometers. No supercomputer exists to be able to run these interactive models the scale of a few hundred meters for ensembles of 100 year simulations.

Ocean chemistry trends are simply not included in any simulations evaluated by the IPCC. The increase in CH4 and other greenhouse gas emissions (H2S) from the oceans as anoxic zones expand will be the critical story of the coming decades. Right now people are barely aware of it.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 24 Dec 2017, 11:01:28

What we also know now for certain that the scientists and the models have been consistently underestimating GW effects
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 04 Apr 2022, 11:17:37

BBC wrote:Climate change: IPCC scientists say it's 'now or never' to limit warming

UN scientists have unveiled a plan that they believe can limit the root causes of dangerous climate change.

A key UN body says in a report that there must be "rapid, deep and immediate" cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Global emissions of CO2 would need to peak within three years to stave off the worst impacts.

Even then, the world would also need technology to suck CO2 from the skies by mid-century.

After a contentious approval session where scientists and government officials went through the report line by line, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now published its guidance on what the world can do to avoid an extremely dangerous future.

First, the bad news - even if all the policies to cut carbon that governments had put in place by the end of 2020 were fully implemented, the world will still warm by 3.2C this century.

This finding has drawn the ire of the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

"Some government and business leaders are saying one thing - but doing another. Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic."

That sort of temperature rise would see our planet hit by "unprecedented heatwaves, terrifying storms, and widespread water shortages."

To avoid that fate, the world must keep the rise in temperatures at or under 1.5C this century, say researchers.

The good news is that this latest IPCC summary shows that it can be done, in what Mr Guterres calls a "viable and financially sound manner."

But keeping temperatures down will require massive changes to energy production, industry, transport, our consumption patterns and the way we treat nature.

To stay under 1.5C according to the IPCC means that carbon emissions from everything that we do, buy, use or eat must peak by 2025, and tumble rapidly after that, reaching net-zero by the middle of this century.

To put it in context, the amount of CO2 that the world has emitted in the last decade is the same amount that's left to us to stay under this key temperature threshold.

"I think the report tells us that we've reached the now or never point of limiting warming to 1.5C," said IPCC lead author Heleen De Coninck, who's Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation and Climate Change at Eindhoven University of Technology.

Speaking to BBC News she said: "We have to peak our greenhouse gas emissions before 2025 and after that, reduce them very rapidly. And we will have to do negative emissions or carbon dioxide removal in the second half of the century, shortly after 2050 in order to limit warming to 1.5C."

Governments will need to look at the provision of low carbon transport

The next few years are critical say the researchers, because if emissions aren't curbed by 2030, it will make it nigh on impossible to limit warming later this century.

Key to that in the short term will be how we generate energy. Luckily, solar panel and wind turbines have never been cheaper, having fallen in cost by around 85% over the past decade.

"It's game over for the fossil fuels that are fuelling both wars and climate chaos," said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the IPCC approval session.

"There's no room for any new fossil fuel developments and the coal and gas plants we already have need to close early."

But diets and lifestyles will also need changing, with huge scope for major carbon savings according to the authors.

"Having the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyles and behaviour can result in a 40-70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This offers significant untapped potential," said IPCC Co-chair Priyadarshi Shukla.

"The evidence also shows that these lifestyle changes can improve our health and wellbeing."

In practice this means governments doing more to encourage walking and healthy eating, and putting in place the infrastructure for far more electric vehicles.

One of the most contentious aspects of the report concerns the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

This can be done in a number of different ways, including through planting trees and making changes to farming practices.

Solar power has fallen dramatically in price in the last decade

But the report finds that to keep warming from going over the dangerous 1.5C threshold we will need more than new forests.

Keeping temperatures down will require machines to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere.

This is very contentious as the technology is new and currently very expensive.

Some participants in the IPCC process are highly sceptical that these approaches will work.

"The idea of quick emissions reductions and large negative emissions technologies are a concern,"said Prof Arthur Petersen, from UCL who was an observer in the approval session.

"There are a lot of pipe dreams in this report."


BBC
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 04 Apr 2022, 21:35:21

Its very sad that Obama derailed the Copenhagen climate meeting in 2009 with his rude and bizarrely egocentric behavior, so that the planned global climate treaty never got signed. The Kyoto Accords with its voluntary CO2 emissions cuts was always intended to be a "stop-gap" treaty until a real treaty mandating real cuts in CO2 emissions could be drafted and signed. And a treaty mandating CO2 cuts had been drafted and agreed to.... it was on the table for ratification in Copenhagen, and all the world's leaders had assembled there to sign it, when Obama decided to force his way into a meeting called by the Chinese that was limited to delegates from third world countries. The Chinese put a great deal of importance on things like respect and courtesy, and when Obama forced his inside the doors and then marched up to the podium and grabbed the microphone away from the Chinese leaders and started ranting at the meeting that the Chinese had called.......it was too much. The Chinese took it as an insult. When Obama tried to apologize and asked the Chinese leader to meet him the Chinese leader instead sent a very minor third level functionary to the meeting with Obama. And thus they insulted obama back for the insult he had done to them. The Copenhagen meeting dissolved in acrimony and the treaty they had all come to Copenhagen to ratify....the treaty they had all previously agreed to that would require mandatory CO2 emissions cuts..... was never signed.

Image
Obama insulted the Chinese at the 2009 Copenhagen UN Climate Meeting and derailed the signing of a treaty requiring real CO2 emissions cuts.....and that undercut the UN Climate Treaty Processs to the point that there still is no treaty requiring real CO2 emissions cuts

And now its too late. The UN Climate Change treaty process has never recovered from the mess in Copenhagen.

The Paris Accords, signed in 2015, are just another re-run of the Kyoto Accords. There are no mandatory CO2 cuts in the Paris Accords, and just to make it worse Obama signed side deals with the Chinese and with India saying they were allowed to spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they liked.

And so here we are now.

CO2 emissions levels have risen dramatically since the failed Copenhagen meeting in 2009, and risen more since the phony Paris Climate Accords were signed in 2015.

Basically its too late now. The UN climate treaty process has been destroyed......the opportunity to put into effect a global treaty requiring real CO2 emissions cuts was lost forever in Copenhagen in 2009.

Scientists in the IPCC can call for voluntary emissions cuts all they want, but without a global climate treaty REQUIRING emissions cuts it ain't gonna happen.

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby jawagord » Tue 05 Apr 2022, 09:17:29

At what point do we say enough with these outlandish UN predictions and the 5/10 year deadlines to act? This has been going on for 30-40 years now, the predictions are garbage, the “actions” are not going to change the climate or the weather in any measurable way. Yet the gullible and the media eat this tripe up like pablum and set their hair on fire, again and again and again!

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN
June 30, 1989 GMT

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.


Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.


https://web.archive.org/web/20201113001 ... a547880cd0
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 05 Apr 2022, 10:03:49

Plantagenet wrote:Scientists in the IPCC can call for voluntary emissions cuts all they want, but without a global climate treaty REQUIRING emissions cuts it ain't gonna happen.

Cheers!


Cheers indeed! And don't forget to include some pictures from your next jet setting/globe trotting CO2 emitting adventures, we love it when people pretend to care about something!
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 05 Apr 2022, 12:08:44

jawagord wrote: the predictions are garbage....


No they aren't. The predictions are actually pretty darn good. And the predictions from the most modern and complete computer models are better then from older and more primitive computer models. The increases in global temperature, heat waves, storm intensity, droughts, forest fires, etc. etc. we are seeing around the world are all entirely consistent with the predictions of what the IPCC and other scientists predicted would happen as the world began to heat up due to human caused climate change.

AND...because the predictions have been reasonably accurate in predicting the course of global warming so far, its highly likely that the predictions of what will happen as the world continues to heat up in the future are also likely to be meaningful and reasonably accurate.

Image
Take Heed!

Cheers!
Last edited by Plantagenet on Tue 05 Apr 2022, 13:14:25, edited 1 time in total.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests