Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Next
Comments 98601 to 98650:
-
Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
muoncounter - I was just reading that article this afternoon, wanted to put in a link, but couldn't find a publicly accessible version! Thanks for putting it in. Excellent paper. I especially appreciated Figure 2d, showing the interleaving of CO2 and H2O spectral lines. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:34 PM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Tom Yulsman pioneered it here.
It's just a step to the leftright... The Yooper -
Oceans are cooling
gpwayne - There's an updated chart of Argo and XBT data at the Argo data center through 2009, including the latest updates to XBT corrections. Well worth looking at.
-
muoncounter at 13:27 PM on 15 January 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
New summary paper Infrared radiation and planetary temperature in Physics Today. Covers the basic physics, addresses the 'saturation fallacy', compares absorption of CO2 and H2O and ties in AIRS data. Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between ground temperature and the radiating temperature. The result, once the system has come to equilibrium, is surface warming. -
barry1487 at 12:56 PM on 15 January 2011Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
A skeptical friend points out that the average temperature of the near-surface atmosphere is cooler than the average temperature of the sea surface (link). His question is: how can the atmosphere warm the oceans if the surface of the oceans are, on average, warmer than the atmosphere? I figure the answer is 'circulation' - and that much of the heat transfer from atmosphere to ocean would occur at night and in warm regions. It's not been easy verifying these details on the net. General overviews, like the post heading this thread, are quite common. I believe my skeptic friend's deficit comes from 2-dimensional thinking. -
JMurphy at 12:23 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
There is also a rebuttal to Monckton's attempt at a rebuttal : Mike Steketee's response to Christopher Monckton How much longer can Monckton continue to make merry with the truth ? He obviously has no shame. -
Kooiti Masuda at 12:20 PM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Even though I understand from the title that the subject is technological, I first thought "Global wind power has doubled over the 3 years" referred to the natural climate system and that it could not happen. In a minute I realized what part of wind power it meant. Certainly there is much wind power as a natural thing at high altitude, but it is not wind power as energy resource (as anonandon expects) yet, until we find some safe and reliable means to transmit it to the point of demand. I think that local energy storage (temporal aggregation) is crucial for utilization of wind power near the ground. Connecting together (spatial aggregation) does not guarantee stable supply. And the storage must be low-cost with respect to resources. Sometimes pumping water may work, but probably the main way will be something chemical, perhaps some kind of fuel cells. I think we should look for storage materials more conveniently stored than hydrogen. As for the issue of co-generation of electricity and heat from fuel, there is a trade off between efficiency in generating electricity and opportunity in supplying heat. Counting electricity and heat which have different utility in quantities of energy tends to favor co-generation, but if we think about exergy (energy potentially convertible to work), combination of high-efficiency heat engine and on-demand heat pump may be better. -
adelady at 12:12 PM on 15 January 2011Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
barry, water may be a poor conductor of heat, but there is always some conduction. I'm sure someone has shown that one can warm water by having warm air at its surface (while keeping the bulk of the water beneath the surface insulated from any other source of heat). It may be slow and inefficient, but there is no reason why water cannot be warmed - to some extent - by a warmer gas at its surface. When we're talking about such a huge surface area, that amounts to a lot of heat over months and years. Remembering that there's also direct (even if inefficient) heating by radiation. Once you add in convection by ocean currents, there's plenty of scope for heating to affect the whole of the ocean. -
dmyerson at 12:10 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
So is the Knox and Douglass paper just cherry-picking data? Did they justify their choice of data sets? -
Alden Griffith at 12:10 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Nice post, John. I need to catch up with some more posts of my own... -
Tenney Naumer at 12:01 PM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
John, great post! n.b. the Purkey and Johnson link doesn't seem to be working. -
r.pauli at 11:54 AM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Of course we will not attack Lord Monkton personally. Monkton is certainly permitted to follow any hobby that he desires. And his public speech is often engaging. On this issue - and many others - I notice a few members of Congress often will mistake pompous bufoonery - for valid science. But that is strictly a criticism of Congress. -
Rob Painting at 11:51 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Sphaerica @ 38 - That really is a great graphic, Gareth Renowden over at Hot-Topic highlighted it a while back. Says it all doesn't it?. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:40 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I realize now that I should have mirrored the graph horizontally... right now, the months read right to left (i.e. January is on the right, December on the left). -
Bob Lacatena at 11:37 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
This image is global, not NH, but it's my personal favorite for conveying the warming seen in the past century, by year and month, with the most dramatic change starting around 1980. In that period you can easily see the trend for greater warming in the winter and spring, Pinatubo, El Ninos, and more. It's also annotated for volcanic eruptions, solar minima and maxima, El Ninos and La Ninas (click the link to get to the larger image to see the annotations clearly, or go to the gistemp page itself). It's a slight modification of the GISS image from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Tvs.year+month.lrg.gif at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ (near the bottom of the page). [I just spliced the three separate segments together, and rotated it to fit neatly in a narrow column.] Click this link or the image to see a larger copy.
-
ClimateWatcher at 11:24 AM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Through 1979, sea SURFACE temperatures do exhibit a solid warming trend ( I get 1.36K per century rate from the Hadley numbers ). That isn't the highest rate for a thirty plus year period, however. From 1910 through 1945, the SST warming was at a rate of 1.7 K per century. Climate watching is, unfortunately, a multi-lifetime pursuit. -
MattJ at 11:11 AM on 15 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
The analysis in this article concerning why Monckton's claim amounts to mere disinformation is good. But (and you knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?) it is still not very readable for the general public; I am not sure just who its target audience really is. Does this audience include anyone with actual influence over climate policy? So one of Monckton's many false claims is refuted. How many more to go? How do we avoid playing a losing game of catchup, one where we correctly and scientifically refute each one of his false claims, but only too late, after he has persuaded a politically significant population (e.g. the Republican Party in the US) to shut their ears to us? It is already too late to avoid disaster; soon it will be too late to avoid catastrophe. -
dhogaza at 11:07 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Albatross, I was surprised they said "most", too. I looked to see if it was safe to say "northern hemisphere meteorological winter", saw that bit in wikipedia, and qualified my statement as a result. From others: "Forecaster Ian Michael Waite said: ‘We expect January to be colder than average – there’s no way we’re moving out of this mini ice age any time soon.’ Whoever that Ian Michael Waite is (couldn't find anything about him from his supposed home on NetWeather) but he seems to have provided the all-important quote that the so-called skeptics and deniers can latch on to. But has he spoken too soon ?" London certainly isn't experiencing a continued "mini-ice age" this first half of January, unless "more or less normal temps" qualifies. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:54 AM on 15 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Dr. Franzen, I was late coming back to check, but I just saw your replies and calculations in 74 and 80, in reference to my fear expressed in 72. Thank you very much!!! -
Albatross at 10:50 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Dhogaza @35, We are in agreement, on all fronts :) Just a small comms breakdown. I am surprised that the Wikipedia article says "most locations". As far as I know, all the major climate centres around the world (NOAA/NCDC, Hadley etc.) consider DJF to be the boreal winter. -
barry1487 at 10:50 AM on 15 January 2011Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
Question: The surface of the oceans is on average warmer than the near-surface air temperature. How can atmospheric heat warm the oceans? (My guess is that circulation patterns from diurnal and latitudinal changes sea heat exchange from air to oceans under certain conditions, but I still wonder how the oceans are heating when, generally, the air is warmer than the water) -
dhogaza at 10:41 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
"In meteorology and climate, regardless of where one lives in the N. Hemisphere, the boreal meteorological winter is officially DJF." So claims being made here and elsewhere that Europe, or even portions of Europe, are experiencing their coldest winter on record, or coldest winter in 327 years are simply ludicrous." Wikipedia only says "most locations in the Northern Hemisphere". I said NA and Eurasia because I know it to be true for those two continents, and of course all the screaming of record cold centers around the eastern US and northern Europe. "So claims being made here and elsewhere that Europe, or even portions of Europe, are experiencing their coldest winter on record, or coldest winter in 327 years are simply ludicrous." Certainly true, such claims are bull, and I'm well aware that we're only about 1/2 way through meteorological winter. And where I live in NA, it's not been a cold winter at all. -
Mike G at 10:22 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
AS @ 51 No, that graph is NOT what De'ath et al's data show. It took a bit of hunting to figure out where that graph even came from, but eventually I found it here: More Coral Reef Shenanigans It's a perfect example of why you should RTFP and understand what the authors actually did before you declare them wrong. Apparently, what the creator of that image did was use the raw data from only the NEW sample sites, which were only a small subset of the total number of samples used by De'ath et al. The majority of the of the data were from Lough's previous samples which included hundreds of corals. The assertion that there were only 9 samples in the early 2000s is false. At the end of the study period in 2005, there were still 21 corals in the sample and 77 for the previous year. At the peak, there were ~300 corals in the sample, not the ~60 shown in the graph. Not only is the creator of the graph not using most of the data De'ath did, they also didn't correct for distance from shore and sea surface temperature. As Lough and Barnes (2000) found in the paper you cited, skeletal density increases with distance across the shelf and calcification increases with SST (which co-varies with latitude). Failure to correct for these variables introduces a spatial bias as corals from different parts of the reef enter the record- e.g. years with more corals from the North would increase the average calcification rate and make it look like calcification was increasing over time, even in the absence of any real temporal trend. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
co2isnotevil - I would recommend you read Petty 2006; there is a summary of some of the more important spectral data here in The greenhouse effect and 2nd law of thermodynamics, intermediate. -
Paul D at 09:14 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Re Ericmair@26 Haven't seen that one before. Reminds me of the hydraulic power systems in London that pre-dated electric grids. There were massive steam engines that were connected to massive hydraulic accumulators, those were connected to a network of pipes that fed factories, providing power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hydraulic_Power_Company I guess the Gravity Power thing is an accumulator, the exception being that it would drive a generator?? -
co2isnotevil at 09:11 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Regarding my criticism of the GWPPT presentation, it was at the request of rfranzen and I spent at least an hour of my valuable time pouring through it to see what he was doing wrong. Upon review, as I said, the math seemed OK. In fact, it's virtually the same math I've used. The problem was the data going in to the analysis. Much better data is available now and will produce far superior results, just probably not the expected results. -
co2isnotevil at 09:03 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
This is directly related to Hfranzen's post. He claims the same same exact thing that I do which is that half of what is absorbed by the atmosphere by GHG's is radiated out into space. Look at the GWPPT presentation he references. If this is the case, which I believe it is, the same thing applies. Why is it so hard to admit that the clear sky atmosphere radiates power into space? Look at the Trenberth paper. He claims that the atmosphere radiates 169 W/m^2. His number is so much higher because he assumes a much narrower transparent window. Examining the emission spectrum of the Earth, the emission lines of the GHG's in the atmosphere are mostly dark, so the only place in the spectrum where this power can be emitted is in the transparent window. KR can't answer this, so how about hfranzen? What is the origin of this power? He must be able to answer this to explain his own work. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
hfranzen - For my part, I wish to thank you for putting in the not-inconsiderable work on your guest post, and for presenting the information for people who do not have your physical chemistry background. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:49 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
If I could ask just one favor, it would be nice to not just throw around empty rhetoric about how bad wind is or responses that there is a conspiracy against wind power. Also please don't turn this into another debate over nuclear power. My view is a great deal of the criticism over wind can be answered with solutions at small and large scales. Both scales can be optimized with a smart grid. Here's just one article about various alternatives http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_challenge_for_green_energy_how_to_store_excess_electricity/2170/ -
muoncounter at 08:47 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#33: "rumor mill and misinformation machine" Yeah, funny how they think talking about the weather during the summer is cherry picking; but in winter, they seem to pick up every Local on the 8s. Risking John's ire, I will note one weatherman who seems to have his head on straight: Cold? This isn't cold. Forty below is cold. But we're a long way from the record-cold days our parents and grandparents experienced. Thursday was the 99th anniversary of the day in 1912 when thermometers in Oakland, out in Garrett County, registered 40 degrees below zero. That was, and still is, the record-cold reading for the state. This is by no means an invitation to play dueling weather reports here. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
co2isnotevil - I'm going to go with the moderator on this. 450 posts, most of which repeatedly pointed to errors in your framing of the problem, is several hundred too many. Been there, done with that. -
Rob Painting at 08:35 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Arkadiusz @ 51 GBR calcification decline looks like this. Maybe it would if De'ath et al made all the errors that Professor Ridd and his colleagues did, that simply wasn't the case. But again you continue to be off-topic, this post is about bleaching the calcification "argument" is in the works. -
hfranzen at 08:27 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #90 Good advice - I feel like I've stepped through the looking glass and am trying to discuss science with the Red Queen. I did initially feel gratified by a number of responses from some participants who were interested in learning something. -
co2isnotevil at 08:23 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
KR, The earth must emit 240 W/m^2 at 255K The power from the surface, clouds and indirectly the surface beneath clouds that passes through the transparent window in the atmosphere is at least 100 W/m^2 too low. What is the origin of this extra radiation, if not the surface or the clouds? This isn't a strawman or red herring, but a question that you can't seem to answer. I've answered this question, but you don't like my answer because it implies there's something horribly wrong with your 'consensus' science. You tried to say it comes from GHG's, but this would be in the emission spectrum of those gases, which when observed from space, are dark. To help you answer the question, consider the following: The average surface temperature of 287K corresponds to 285 W/m^2. Clouds have an average temperature of about 261K, corresponding to 263 W/m^2. The clear sky atmospheric window is about 45% and the window between clouds and space is larger, at about 55% (far less water vapor). Clouds cover 2/3 of the planet. You would claim the windows are even smaller, but that only makes things worse for you. The energy passing through the transparent window is, 1/3 * 285 * 45% + 2/3 * 263 * 55% = 139 W/m^2 Where is the other 101 W/m^2 of radiative power coming from?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Much of this was worked over in excruciating detail on a prior thread. Questions specific to Hfranzen's post, which stands on its own, are the topic here. -
Albatross at 08:19 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
JMurphy, The "skeptic" rumor mill and misinformation machine seems to be working full tilt. I cannot believe, simply cannot believe that claims like this are being made: "Brace yourselves for a 'mini ice age': This winter set to be coldest in 300 YEARS" This is definitely something for the CSRRT. But the request has to come from an organization or reporter. Any takers? -
ericmair at 07:58 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Storage is the answer. Only pumped storage can manage the capacities needed to do a proper job. Now there is Gravity Power (http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/grid-scale-electricity-storage.html) All the advantages of pumped storage without most of the hassles and a lot cheaper too. -
anonandon at 07:48 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
I find myself very much in agreement with scatter and Heraclitus regarding airborne / high altitude wind power. It seems to offer such obvious benefits for more reliable and stronger wind - potentially without the visual impact of huge windfarms at groundlevel. And yet Magenn have had flying prototypes of their Air Rotor turbines since 2006 without bringing a product to market. Is there some catch that I just haven't seen or am I just being a bit too impatient? -
Ron Crouch at 07:37 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#30 Kids and their toys! -
JMurphy at 07:12 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "Newspaper in Germany, France and Britain have announced that this winter is the coldest since 327 years." Are you actually going to present any links to these claims ? While you gather them for posting, I have been doing a little search for myself and all I could come up with for the UK were the following : The savage "mini ice age" freeze has brought an average December temperature of -2.3°C - the worst since records began north of the border in 1910. But, by using official English stats dating back to the 1600s as a guide, it's shaping up to be our coldest winter in 327 years. During 1683 the River Thames was reported to be frozen under 11in of ice. Last night Net-weather's Ian Michaelwhite branded this winter "a mini ice age". The Met Office's Charlie Powell said: "It's rare to have low temperatures so prolonged." The Scottish Sun (!) Let's not quibble too much but the Met Office say the actual figure is -1.9C. But perhaps we should quibble about using CET temperatures (for Central England, of course) to determine anything about Scottish temperatures ? And the 1683 temperature I asked about earlier, seems to be based on the coldest Winter on record - in Central England - using reports of a frozen Thames. As for the "mini ice-age"... Perhaps you read the report from THE DAIL MAIL : Brace yourselves for a 'mini ice age': This winter set to be coldest in 300 YEARS Forecaster Ian Michael Waite said: ‘We expect January to be colder than average – there’s no way we’re moving out of this mini ice age any time soon.’ Whoever that Ian Michael Waite is (couldn't find anything about him from his supposed home on NetWeather) but he seems to have provided the all-important quote that the so-called skeptics and deniers can latch on to. But has he spoken too soon ? Even if he has, the so-called skeptics have their quote and they will be using it as long as they can get away with it ! In fact, the above report was so good (for so-called skepticism) that Nigel Lawson's GWPF used it in toto. (Don't worry, all the links [except the NetWeather & Met Office ones] contain "no follow" values, so I hope they work as they should do) Also, with regard to the Input Boxes I was seeing earlier, they don't appear in Google Chrome, so maybe it was Internet Explorer only...or my computer, somehow ! -
Ron Crouch at 07:11 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Obviously the post I was responding to got deleted.Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Sorry, Ron; hacking this out on my phone; refresh is like watching paint dry... -
Ron Crouch at 06:50 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
"Large areas of the northern hemisphere are warming at twice the rate we've been quoting." If that's not scary enough have a read: Earth's Hot Past: Prologue to Future Climate? "The study also indicates that the planet's climate system, over long periods of times, may be at least twice as sensitive to carbon dioxide as currently projected by computer models, which have generally focused on shorter-term warming trends." In this week's journal Science "Perspectives" article. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 06:43 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Someone must know: Wasn’t there a paper this year that just counted new research papers to see how often the new research indicated that the problem is not quite as bad as previously thought, vs the opposite? I would appreciate a reference to this please. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
co2isnotevil - The emissivity of O2 and N2 at Earth climate temperatures is close to zero, and is inconsequential in terms of radiative energy flow to space. You are discussing a strawman, a red herring. Radiative emissions from the atmosphere come from greenhouse gases and from clouds. Not bulk O2 or N2 - which is why they are not called 'greenhouse gases'. -
muoncounter at 06:13 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Another GISSTemp shot: 1960-2010 annual trends.
-- click for full scale
Medium orange = 1.5 degrees in 50 years or 0.3deg/decade
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Link's bad. Fixed. -
co2isnotevil at 05:56 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
KR, Let's start with Trenberth's 70 W/m^2 passing through the transparent window from clouds and the surface and out into space. For an earth at 255K, it must radiate 240 W/m^2, leaving a shortfall of 170 W/m^2. We know this power must be leaving the planet, so where in the outgoing spectrum is this power and what is it's origin? I think you are confused between the narrow band emissions from an excited gas and the broadband emissions of a heated, ground state gas. If you don't think that a heated gas emits a Planck spectrum of power, why does the Sun emit a Planck spectrum of power whose temperature from Wien's law is presumed to be it's surface temperature? It's certainly well known that a high pressure gas is a BB, but what this really means is that a high pressure gas is a better BB, relative to absorbing energy. If heated by other means, for example, via GHG's, even a low pressure gas radiates a Planck spectrum, for example, gas clouds in deep space. So, when someone says that O2 or N2 is not a good black body, they mean that without help, it will not absorb radiation from the environment and thus will not emit this absorbed energy. In a strict sense, an ideal BB absorbs 100% of the incident radiation and then emits this as a Planck distribution. O2 and N2 can still emit a Planck distribution when heated by other means, even though in a strict sense, these gases are very poor black bodies. -
Albatross at 05:52 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I also quite like this image, from NASA GISTEMP:
Zonal mean SAT anomalies by month.
-
Paul D at 05:42 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Grim, the UK government is committed to replacing many existing nuclear power stations at existing sites. I assume the new power stations will have a higher capacity?? Logically it would make sense to do that, then you would have more mega-watts from the same sites and it wouldn't have an impact on peoples perceptions, since we have already lived with nuclear power stations on those sites. BTW, the 32 gigawatts of offshore wind farms that the Crown Estate has approved, would actually be enough to power all road transport in the UK, even with the low load factor that wind offers. That in turn equates a UK carbon emissions total cut of 25%, because transport emissions is a large chunk of UK emissions. -
scatter at 05:32 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Well I can't think of significant downsides. It just makes so much sense. There are different levels of airborne wind energy, from low level all the way up to stratospheric, but I can't believe that it's beyond our capabilities to route aircraft safely around it. One to watch for sure. -
muoncounter at 05:10 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#19: "graph "Temperature Cahenge for three latitude bands" seems odd: 2010 is not record warm" This version of the graph does not appear to the have 2010 data point posted as of yet. -
Albatross at 05:09 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
You know that the contrarians/'skeptics" etc. are getting incredibly desperate when they are having to focus on unusually cold weather on a monthly time scale, over an area that covers about 2% of the planet. Dhogaza @22, In meteorology and climate, regardless of where one lives in the N. Hemisphere, the boreal meteorological winter is officially DJF. So claims being made here and elsewhere that Europe, or even portions of Europe, are experiencing their coldest winter on record, or coldest winter in 327 years are simply ludicrous. Let has have a look at the data in March. But still, we should be looking at long-term trends in global SAT. as muoncounter has done in this excellent post.
Prev 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Next
