Recent Comments

Prev  2510  2511  2512  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  Next

Comments 125851 to 125900:

125851. carrot eater at 10:19 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        sbarron2000: Take the max and min data shown, and take the average. That'll pretty much suffice. As for homogenisation: Again, I haven't taken the time to appreciate mechanics of the new pairwise algorithm yet, but as far as I'm concerned, the proof is in the pudding. After homogenisation, the 'poor' stations look just like the 'good', the liquid-in-glass look pretty much like the MMTS, and they all look like the US CRN network (which were purposefully sited ideally some time back). Seems like it's doing OK to me. And again, you'll see the major adjustment to the 'good' stations here was TOB, which is separate from the pairwise homogenisation.
125852. Tom Dayton at 10:05 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Berenyi Peter, Wikipedia says "A strong link between global lightning and global temperature has not been experimentally confirmed as of 2008." Here are some peer-reviewed articles backing up that summary: Williams (2009, in Atmospheric Research) wrote in section 11, "Global circuit response to climate change," "The global circuit response to temperature change on still longer time scales remains an outstanding question (Williams, 2005, Satori et al., 2008). The best current evidence is that the global circuit is stable on long time scales, but the quantitative record is quite short, about half a century (Markson, 2007).... Lightning detection networks are often varying with time (addition of sensors, improvements in signal processing, etc) and this can complicate assessments of long-term trends." Williams (2005, in Atmospheric Research) wrote in the abstract "lightning is responsive to temperature on many time scales, but the sensitivity to temperature appears to diminish at the longer time scales." In the body of the article, "The evidence that lightning responds positively to temperature on all of the foregoing time scales does not guarantee a pronounced global circuit response to temperature. The key issue here is convective adjustment."
125853. chris at 09:26 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        re #27/36 Berényi Péter "Once again. Forget communication & messages, it is not the scientist's field of expertise. Go for truth instead." Careful with attempts at "truth" Peter. As you did on the other thread about tropospheric water vapour, you're attempting to bypass the essential element of scientific enquiry which is evidence. Attempts at "truth" might be used to bolster weak, non-scientific positions, but it’s usually obvious if these don't accord with the evidence. That's the case with your lightning/upper tropospheric water vapour (UTWV) idea. I think you've misunderstood the papers of the scientists that you cite (O. Pinto Jr. and I.R.C.A. Pinto; and C. Price and M. Asfur). The essential point is not that enhanced lightening is expected in a warming world due to enhanced UTWV; in fact lightning is a means of (temporarily) enhancing UTWV (and aiding equilibration of water vapour in the UT), and the use of lightening as a proxy for UTWV should be seen in that light; it’s a potential means of determining the variability in UTWV. That’s clear from the recent papers of your scientists: e.g.: Pinto O and Pinto IRCA (2008) On the sensitivity of cloud-to-ground lightning activity to surface air temperature changes at different timescales in Sao Paulo, Brazil J. Geophys. Res. 113, D20123 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009841.shtml These authors describe the expectation that lightning should increase in a warming world, and show that their own data from Brazil is consistent with models in predicting enhanced lightning above an enhanced surface warmth in the decades from 1950-1990. They point out that there isn’t good evidence for long term global lightning trends, but state that this may be due to limited and localized analyses and the fact that lightning predominates in the tropics whereas warming as dominated in the temperate and polar regions. These authors say nothing about the relationship between lightning and UTWV other than to point out that Price and Asfur have attempted to relate variability in UTWV to lightning (i.e. lightning is the cause of temporarily enhanced UTWV since the associated phenomena aid in transporting water vapour to high altitudes). This is very clearly stated in the recent papers of Price and Asfur. For example: Price C (2009) Will a drier climate result in more lightning? Atmos. Res. 91, 479-484

        Previous studies have indicated that increased lightning activity will moisten the upper troposphere ([Price, 2000] and [Price and Asfur, 2006a]). Hence, a drier surface resulting in a wetter upper atmosphere also appears to present a contradiction. However, in a warmer climate the enhanced evaporation from the oceans, together with the increased moisture-holding capacity of the atmosphere, leads to higher specific humidities in the atmosphere. When thunderstorms develop in this moister environment, there is more water vapor available for transport aloft into the upper troposphere. Since the upper troposphere is naturally extremely dry, increasing the intensity of thunderstorms in a warmer climate will indeed moisten the upper troposphere, even though the surface layer may be drier due to enhanced evapo-transpiration, and/or decreases in the amount of rainfall.

        And Price and Asfur, point out that there is a good match between lightning activity and the subsequent change in UTWV (due to the causality indicated above), and therefore lightning activity could be a potentially useful means of estimating UTWV variability, which they assess by comparing lightning data with independent UTWV measures from NCEP. Price and Asfur are in agreement with the evidence that increased global warming has resulted in enhanced UTWV; their analysis is a potential means of assessing daily variability in UTWV (over continents but not over oceans): Price C, Asfur M (2006) Can lightning observations be used as an indicator of upper-tropospheric water vapor variability? Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 87, 292-298 http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FBAMS-87-3-291 So global lightning isn’t a proxy for global UTWV. However since lightning is part of the atmospheric phenomenon that facilitates transport of tropospheric water to the UT, thunderstorm and lighting variability are expected to result in consequent UTWV variability in the short term (Price and Asfur consider it debatable whether the lighting – UTWV response will be manifest on changing the temporal scale from daily to monthly, seasonally or longer term), and that’s the basis for their analysis. Of course if we want to determine UTWV we really have to do the hard work of careful satellite monitoring or get to grips with the (so far imperfect) radiosonde reanalyses….
125854. chris at 09:16 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        EdB, the ultimate arbiter of scientific analysis is time and the cauldron of subsequent research and critique. If one is interested in the paleoclimate of the last millenium or two, one looks at the scientific evidence (lots of this presented in recent posts on this thread). Mann's original analysis has been hugely stimulating of an entire scientific field, and the subsequent analysis using a range of methods, has come up with broadly similar conclusions about the anomalous nature of late 20th century and contemporary warming. If Mann was so wrong, how come he seems to have been right? That's the beauty of the scientific method Ed. Reality supercedes politics. It would be unfortunate to fixate on a political "enquiry", and ignore the reality of a wealth of scientific data...
125855. Berényi Péter at 08:41 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Riccardo, Pinto & Pinto have found that a single degree centigrade of local surface temperature change is enough to increase lightning activity by as much as 30-40%, independent of timescale. An effect of this magnitude is also predicted by climate models. The coupling is prominent, one can not possibly miss it, provided warming occurs indeed. On the other hand, via Schumann resonance no increase in global integrated lightning activity is observed on multidecadal scales. It follows, that both temperature trend reconstructions and mainstream climate models are in serious trouble. Indirect measurement is fine as long as the measurement process and device is tightly controlled and the physics is understood. Neither one of these assumptions hold for the kinds of indirect measurements AGW theory is based on. OHC would be a good indicator if it were measured. In fact it is only measured with reasonable resolution since late 2003 and only for the upper 750 m or so of the oceans. Not much increase is observed for this period, all else is the usual mess of ad hoc "adjustments". Measuring the low frequency modes of Schumann resonance is a beautiful hack. It effectively uses the entire Earth as a high precision measurement device. It is not an effect masked by all kinds of biases, spurious noise sources, instrument changes, calibration problems and the like. Also, long term measurement projects are not controlled by the climate crowd, but geophysicists. I wonder what should happen to force you to consider constant UTRH climate models getting falsified. If no conceivable state of affairs is sufficient to do that, the models are so slippery, they have no scientific merit whatsoever. As for being harsh. Please, do that, I am not touchy. In science going for truth is a better predisposition than going for PR exploits, influence, glory, power, money and the like. If it is arrogant, so be it.
125856. chris at 08:11 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        EdB this site is pretty good at focusing on the science, and you’re not going to make much headway with that stuff. I wonder if you’d really be happy with a world in which science was “decided” by political committees! In fact there have been a large number of paleoproxy analyses of past temperatures since Mann's original papers. These pretty uniformly support the essential conclusions of the 1998/9 Mann et al reconstructions, with no evidence (in N Hemisphere reconstructions) of any periods during the past couple of millennia that were warmer than the temperatures around the middle of the 20th century (i.e. the evidence indicates that the contemporary N. hemisphere is already around 0.6-0.9 oC warmer than during the warmest period of the last 2000 years). All of the published paleoreconstructions place the late 20th century and contemporary warming as being anomalous in the context of the last two millennia much as Mann et al proposed in 1998. The paleoproxy data is archived here, and there’s no excuse in not addressing the scientific evidence that supports this conclusion: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html Otherwise, it’s difficult to understand your posts. I’ve just looked in the database for papers by the McIntyre person that you have mentioned and there simply isn’t anything there that addresses this subject (apart from a few paragraphs of unsubstantiated complaints against Mann et al's 2008 paper in PNAS). Wahl and Ammann published an enormously detailed paper that essentially validated the Mann et al proxy analysis in relation to detailed methodologies, and demonstrated that the McIntyre critique was without merit: Wahl ER, Ammann CM (2007) Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence Climatic Change 85, 33-69 Your McIntyre chap hasn’t responded in the scientific literature, so clearly there’s nothing substantively wrong with the Mann et al or Wahl and Ammann’s analyses that warrents a critical analysis in the scientific literature. In any case this is very, very old news and we don’t have to keep on pretending that all of our understanding of paleoclimate rests on a paper from 12 years ago! If we're interested in the science we really should be addressing the evidence.
125857. SNRatio at 07:31 AM on 31 January 2010
        The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
        @39 Berényi Péter Peer review only implies that _some_ kind of quality control has been applied. Lots of crap pass through all the time, the basic premise is not that it is correct, but that it could be, and that the bad parts will be contradicted by new work and left behind. This is certainly not good enough, as we have a number of recent examples to demonstrate. In this situation, using results just because they have passed peer review is certainly not very skeptical.
125858. sbarron2000 at 07:07 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        Carrot eater: yes, the means.
125859. Riccardo at 06:51 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        EdB, exactly what I said, you were looking for it, not at the broad picture of the science of temperature reconstruction.
125860. EdB at 06:40 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Riccardo The Wegman report was easy to find. It pops up in Wikipedia.
125861. jmath at 06:38 AM on 31 January 2010
        Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
        I am confused. THere seems to be a logic problem here. If the proxies are incorrect post 1960 or there is a divergence at one time and you don't really KNOW the cause for that divergence then how can anybody conclude that there weren't other divergences you didn't understand in the past? Just because we don't see divergence between north and south there could be something which affected tree ring data over any period of time in the past either depressing or increasing temperatures that actually ocurred. You really can't have any confidence in this proxy until you understand the cause. What if the cause is caused by droughts? What if there was a large drought over the areas north and south covered by these trees? What if there was a huge flood or volcanoes or some other co-incidence like a increase in acidification due to some bacterial or animal or plant extinction or proliferation? The point is not the specifc thing but the logic being used here which is flawed by you guys. The fact is that the "science" is still very nascent and major things like what is affecting tree ring densities and widths is not really understoof even TODAY let alone 1,000 years ago. It is hard to have confidence in you "scientist" proclamations when a simple computer scientist from MIT can see the logical flaws in your arguments. Maybe because I was trained in math and physics my expectations as to logic and proof are much more stringent. For instance, the idea you can use these proxies and eliminate trees so easily, use so few and not have a well understood rigorous process for these things leaves me totally skeptical. This doesn't seem to qualift as science but more like "social science" which is based on surveys and self-reported data. A lot of the climate science stuff strikes me as having these logical errors. For instance, the models are built and calibrated, initialized to match historical data, then "scientists" say they match history good and predict the future. That's just falacious reasoning. I can construct many milllions of models which match history but which fail immediately to predict the future. In fact that looks to be exactly the case. Modelers admit (from what I've read) that they cannot explain current 10 year trends, whether down or flat or even up a little they don't correspond to any models output. WHereas these models are more accurate in past temperature predictions. Of course they are, they are not used UNLESS they fit past temperature records. But that does not give them ANY credibility in saying they "predict" the future. That would have to wait for confirmation that they actually DO predict temperatures and so far they aren't. Doesn't that pretty much say the models are flawed? Even if you say the models represent almost all relevant factors the errors introduced by their mathematical nature means that the ability to say with any assurance the predictions have a numerical preciseness is almost impossible. The temperatures could be -10 or +30 and still be in the models error bars. So there is no predictive power possible even if the models were correct. We would all be better reverting to a simplification and look at the earth as one giant thermodynamic entity than trying to break it into pieces and understand interelationships in the pieces at a micro level. THis just seems numerically implausible to return any level of accuracy useful over even a few iterations.
125862. Riccardo at 06:35 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        EdB, it's really enlghtning that you quote a politically recruted team that published a non-peer revewd report and not, for example, the National Research Council Report or the tons of other published papers. Is it a bias in the google search engine or somewhere else? Assuming you asked google the same thing you asked here, i tryed both "hockey stick controversy" and "hockey stick broken" but the Wegman Report didn't show up in the first 10 results ...
125863. EdB at 06:35 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Doug.. I don't think realclimate is telling the story correctly as Wegman deals with this:(surely after such expert testimony you must concede that the hockey stick is well and truly broken? Q. Do you agree or disagree with Wahl and Ammann’s finding that the time period used to center the data does not significantly affect the results reported in the MBH98 paper? If you disagree, please state the basis for your disagreement. Were you aware of their reanalysis of MBH99 prior to the time you finalized your report? Do you agree or disagree with their reanalysis of MBH99? If you disagree, please state the basis for your disagreement. Ans: We do disagree. The fundamental issue focuses on the North American Tree Ring proxy series, which Wahl and Ammann admit are problematic in carrying temperature data. In the original MBH decentered series, the hockey-stick shape emerged in the PC1 series because of reasons we have articulated in both our report and our testimony. In the original MBH papers, it was argued that this PC1 proxy was sufficient. We note the following from Wahl and Ammann. “Thus, the number of PCs required to summarize the underlying proxy data changes depending on the approach chosen. Here we verify the impact of the choice of different numbers of PCs that are included in the climate reconstruction procedure. Systematic examination of the Gaspé-restricted reconstructions using 2-5 proxy PCs derived from MM-centered, but unstandardized data demonstrates changes in reconstruction as more PCs are added, indicating a significant change in information provided by the PC series. When two or three PCs are used, the resulting reconstructions are functionally equivalent to reconstructions in which the bristlecone/foxtail pine records are directly excluded When four or five PCs are used, the resulting reconstructions are virtually indistinguishableand are very similar to scenario 5b.” Wahl and Ammann. Without attempting to describe the technical detail, the bottom line is that, in the MBH original, the hockey stick emerged in PC1 from the bristlecone/foxtail pines. If one centers the data properly the hockey stick does not emerge until PC4. Thus, a substantial change in strategy is required in the MBH reconstruction in order to achieve the hockey stick, a strategy which was specifically eschewed in MBH. In Wahl and Ammann’s own words, the centering does significantly affect the results. Yes, we were aware of the Wahl and Ammann simulation. We continue to disagree with the reanalysis for several reasons. Even granting the unbiasedness of the Wahl and Ammann study in favor of his advisor’s methodology and the fact that it is not a published refereed paper, the reconstructions mentioned by Dr. Gulledge, and illustrated in his testimony, fail to account for the effects of the bristlecone/foxtail pines. Wahl and Ammann reject this criticism of MM based on the fact that if one adds enough principal components back into the proxy, one obtains the hockey stick shape again. This is precisely the point of contention. It is a point we made in our testimony and that Wahl and Ammann make as well. A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data. The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result. Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions.'
125864. Doug Bostrom at 06:09 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        EdB at 05:55 AM on 31 January, 2010 Useful to read this: "Wegman had been tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit. That is, was their narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component (PC) correct? He was pointedly not asked whether it made any difference to the final MBH reconstruction and so he did not attempt to evaluate that. Since no one has ever disputed MM05’s arithmetic (only their inferences), he along with the everyone else found that, yes, centering conventions make a difference to the first PC. This was acknowledged way back when and so should not come as a surprise. From this, Wegman concluded that more statisticians should be consulted in paleo-climate work. Actually, on this point most people would agree – both fields benefit from examining the different kinds of problems that arise in climate data than in standard statistical problems and coming up with novel solutions, and like most good ideas it has already been thought of. For instance, NCAR has run a program on statistical climatology for years and the head of that program (Doug Nychka) was directly consulted for the Wahl and Ammann (2006) paper for instance. But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction – that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let’s face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone’s attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right – it would make no practical difference at all. " Illustrations here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/
125865. EdB at 05:55 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Riccardo: your response to my question about the hockey stick. I am puzzled by your references as the records I Googled shows that the hockey stick is broken: The Wegman report to the US Senate says this: Mann's decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science. And in Wegmans reply to Senator Stupak he says the following about Wahl and Ammann (2006): It is our understanding that when using the same proxies as and the same methodology as MM, Wahl and Ammann essentially reproduce the MM curves. Thus, far from disproving the MM work, they reinforce the MM work. The debate then is over the proxies and the exact algorithms as it always has been. The fact that Wahl and Ammann (2006) admit that the results of the MBH methodology does not coincide with the results of other methods such as borehole methods and atmospheric-ocean general circulation models and that Wahl and Ammann adjust the MBH methodology to include the PC4 bristlecone/foxtail pine effects are significant reasons we believe that the Wahl and Amman paper does not convincingly demonstrate the validity of the MBH methodology.
125866. carrot eater at 05:53 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        sbarron: do you want to see the means, instead of just max and min? I don't quite follow.
125867. J Bowers at 05:52 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Berényi Péter at 21:45 PM on 30 January, 2010 "Once again. Forget communication & messages, it is not the scientist's field of expertise. Go for truth instead. " Read up on Hugh Hammond Bennett, scientist and 'political player', and how both his scientific endeavour plus ability to play the political game led to solving the Dust Bowl problem of the Great Depression. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/about/century/hugh.html Pay close attention to the trick he used during a crucial Senate committee in March 1935; something many scientists would be pilloried for today, but then most in the US would also be eating sand today ;)
125868. carrot eater at 05:42 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        Philip64: The SPPI report is just a grab-bag of old nonsense. Most of it is based on simple understandings of how anomalies are used, as well as weird conspiracy theories about stations. The conspiracy theory about station-dropoff is easily dismissed by looking an openly published papers from long ago about the sources of the GHCN, and is further discussed here. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/
125869. Riccardo at 04:52 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        Philip64, not sure i'll waste my time going through it because, looking at just the table of content, they do not address the only relevant point, the impact on the temperature records. All the rest (111 pages!) is propaganda.
125870. Doug Bostrom at 04:49 AM on 31 January 2010
        Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
        Berényi Péter at 22:18 PM on 30 January, 2010 "What is more, they would not even promote economic, intellectual & spiritual development in those regions. Glass beads for the natives. " Avast there, you have to spend more time looking, less time thinking! That whole sentence was conjecture, and wrong. You can do better. In point of fact, one of the remarkable benefits of these tiny private solar installations I've described is the gift of reading. In the kind of subsistence economy I'm speaking of, these devices mean the difference between being able to read versus sitting in the dark. They have been a boon to education. And it's a global phenomenon, most visible in Africa but true also for instance in Mongolia or wherever a grid is not present. No, 15W panels are not going to supplant Western style grids. I guess my original point was, the first 15W bring a huge benefit; a little electricity brings a significant fraction of the benefits of electrification and this is particularly visible where a grid has not inculcated huge expectations and waste. Perhaps also as with the example of cellular phones leapfrogging copper telecommunications systems in developing nations, assuming that a Western style grid is a mandatory prerequisite for social progress is something to consider carefully.
125871. Riccardo at 04:47 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        sbarron2000, "Fortunately, the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average (see their Fig. 7)" They have 71 good stations. In Vose and Menne 2004 they found that the coefficient of determination for both maximum and minimum temperature reaches 95% already with 25 stations. There's no reason for concern.
125872. Doug Bostrom at 04:33 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Berényi Péter at 21:45 PM on 30 January, 2010 "Once again. Forget communication & messages, it is not the scientist's field of expertise. Go for truth instead. " Many scientists have made human communications their primary field of inquiry. Humans of course must be treated as something akin to molecules of gas when it comes to making predictions of aggregate populations, but it is possible to make predictions about human integration of new ideas into existing mental models with a fair degree of confidence Unfortunately, scientific research on communications indicates that conveying truth is not always a simple or easy task, even when the truth being conveyed is not accompanied by controversy and competing attempts to distort understanding. Even when a third party is not waving a brightly colored, distracting blanket and yelling "Hey, look over here!", effectively conveying such things as the difference between weather and climate is fairly challenging. Selecting a means of conveying a concept that is robust against such challenges improves the probability that any given recipient's understanding will be improved. As to ocean heat content, the measurement issues you mention can be resolved easily enough for relatively microscopic amounts of money, sufficient to yield numbers with reasonable confidence. The very little that has been spent on that effort is entirely encouraging.
125873. sbarron2000 at 04:11 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        Also, why does Menne 2010 not provide an average temperature in C anomaly chart that compares adjusted and unadjusted good sites and bad sites? Wouldn't that be the easiest way to show whether there is a difference between the two types of sites? Right now it only provides maximum and minimum anomaly comparisons. Which while interesting, and I'm sure you can learn a lot from them, isn't really the standard way which we compare temp anomaly, is it?
125874. sbarron2000 at 04:03 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        Riccardo, I agree with you that there is plenty of room for good readings. But are the stations in question in such locations? Because if they're not, then the difference of means adjustment appears to attempt to correct tainted measurements using other tainted measurements. That can't be a good thing, can it? Carrot eater, I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully understand what the difference in means test is doing. I have only glanced at Menne 2009, and would probably need to see the actual calcs to figure out how the test is conducted anyway. My comment is only intended as a way to consider the adjustments that Menne 2010 makes, and its possible effects on its findings. Like, what is the effect of running the difference of means test on data that you know is considered poor, because of the site rating? Like must be done when Menne 2010 seperates the good sites from the bad. Does correcting badly sited temp stations using other badly sited temp stations have some unforseen effects? The same is done to the good sites, and there are way fewer of them. So any influence might have a larger impact with the smaller sample. Just thinking out loud again.
125875. Albatross at 04:01 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Someone has been talking about global thunderstorm activity and global warming. First, it is important to remember that we do not have a long record of reliable global lightning flash data (accuracy ~500 m, detection rate >80%). In N. America there are only about 10 yrs worth of spatially and temporally continuous lightning data (and coverage over the Tundra and Arctic is not great). This is not really long enough to draw any conclusions regarding trends. There are some global lightning networks which use a variety of technologies, but they miss a large portion of the strikes/flashes. There are also remotely sensed lightning data from space, but these can only detect nocturnal lightning. Anyhow, so we still do not have a monitoring system that adequately captures and quantifies global lightning activity. For a thunderstorm to form one requires: 1) Instability; 2) Low-level moisture and 3) A trigger mechanism to lift a "parcel" to its level of free convection (LFC). Note that temperature does not appear explicitly(it is included implicitly in all three though, e.g., increase in instability through differential heating in the vertical, air can hold more WV as temp. goes up, surface heating may be enough alone to lift parcels to their LFC), and that each one of these requirements is alone not a necessary and sufficient condition for a thunderstorm. All three need to be satisfied simultaneously. So, as someone who has some expertise int his area, would argue that lightning is not necessarily the best metric for tracking global warming, and also, that we are really not in a position yet to adequately monitor global lightning activity. There are suggestions that lightning actvity may be increasing over high latitudes of continents in the N. Hemisphere in response ot the warming there, although we do not really have sufficient data yet to speak to trends. Anyhow, my point is that is there is a strong lightning signal to GW, then it will likely be evident in lightning activity over high-latitude continental areas in the N. Hemisphere during the warm season. PS: One must also remember that GW may also result in more lightning activity in some areas, but less activity in others b/c of desertification, for example.
125876. Philippe Chantreau at 03:33 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Keep your hasty judgments to yourself RSVP, my computer is powered by hydro.
125877. Philip64 at 02:41 AM on 31 January 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        Watts and d'Aleo have just published this paper at Robert Ferguson's 'Science and Public Policy Institute'. It's claims are pretty wild. Apparently we can throw all temperature records out the window, because ALL of them are effectively faked. It might be worth addressing these claims in detail, if time can be found. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
125878. Riccardo at 02:27 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        EdB, unfortunately the hockey stick is stil there, up and running. More on the divergence problem here
125879. EdB at 01:55 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        I'm new here. Can someone explain how the proxy records validate that the Medieval warm period was cooler? I thought McIntyre demolished the Hockey stick(Mann), and the Yamal tree(Briffa)? What other reconstructions are out there that prove it?
        Response: EdB, welcome to Skeptical Science. Just one reminder - please post comments on the relevant page. A search for hockey stick (note the search form in the left margin) would point you towards the hockey stick is broken page. Here, you will learn that since Mann's hockey stick paper in 1999, there have been a number of temperature reconstructions made using a variety of techniques (not just the PCA analysis employed by Mann) from a number of different proxies (eg - stalagmites, ice cores, boreholes, tree rings, etc).
        
        Then if you have any further questions, you can continue the discussion there which is the best place for such a topic.
125880. Marcel Bökstedt at 01:43 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        > Berényi Péter I agree with you that monitoring the global average of the surface temperature is not the best way to measure climate change, and that OHC sounds like a more interesting number. As you say, it might not be so easy to measure this. You might be able to estimate how much heat going in or out at the surface of the ocean, but there might also be unknown heat exchange between the ocean and the underlying rocks - or maybe you can ignore this? Anyhow, you claim that OHC is decreasing. This does not seem to agree with the source cited at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html. Do you have some reference to back up your claim? I do not understand the relevance of lightening activity - why is there a strong relation between this and global temperature? Even granted this and granted your claim that global lightening activity is constant, why does this measure anything more relevant than surface temperature which we measure directly anyhow, and which we seem to agree is not necessarily the best parameter to monitor.
125881. Riccardo at 01:27 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        RSVP, not sure to represent the thinking of our guest, but it looks like this site is devoted to science more than technology. Although very interesting and important, it's outside the scope of this blog. IMHO.
        Response: My original plan was to begin with a focus on science and as the public debate moved on from the scientific question of what's causing global warming into the question of what to do about it, Skeptical Science would move into that area too. I must confess we're not as far along as I expected to be at this point.
125882. Riccardo at 01:20 AM on 31 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Berényi Péter, you put a lot of different pieces together trying to disprove all of them. Let me pick them one by one and let me not quoting the relevant scientific articles to save time; they can easily be found if you're interested. it looks like you are not much confident with indirect measurement. Although the problem of AGW si definitely a problem of energy imbalance, temperature is one of its manifestation. It is (good old) standard practice in science to use indirect measurements to guess what is not accessible directly. OCH is a good indicator and it has been increasing for decades. Do you want to bet using just a few recent years? Is this a "standad statistical practice"? And why limit to a depth of 750 m? In the end, OCH in not so well characterized as anyone may wish and surface temperature do a good enough job. On this last point, you are missing that most part of the temperature record does not come from land. Indeed throughout the oceans the surface temperature is assumed to be the sea surface temperature and, surprise!, there's no controversy between the various data sets, at least if the "standard statistical practice" applies. Sea level measurements do NOT depend on any particular tide gauge and crustal upward/downward motion is quite well known and often measured. The relation between SLR and temperature is uncertain to the extent the other contribution (other than temperature) can be evaluated. It can be done and, allowing for the uncertainties, the are not contradictory. Please excuse me if i'll be i little harsh in what follow, but too often you sceptics claim to have found the smoking gun, the nail in the coffins, the final word. It just makes apparent your desire to put the discussion to an end. The last "infatuation" for the lightnings is silly. It's not a well characterized technique and, above all, it does not represent the whole water vapour content, even of just the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere. True that water vapour is carried there by strong upward transport in thunderstorms but it's not the whole story, not even the largest part but what is measured is the frequency of the events, not the amount of water vapour carried up in the atmopshere. There are no nails in the coffin here, just one more little piece of information; claiming that it "falsify the models" is absurd and inviting us to "go for truth" is arrogant.
125883. SNRatio at 00:28 AM on 31 January 2010
        The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
        @39 Berényi Péter Peer review only implies that _some_ kind of quality control has been applied. Lots of crap pass through all the time, the basic premise is not that it is correct, but that it could be, and that the bad parts will be contradicted by new work and left behind. This is certainly not good enough, as we have a number of recent examples to demonstrate. In this situation, using results just because they have passed peer review is certainly not very skeptical.
125884. SNRatio at 00:01 AM on 31 January 2010
        The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
        32, @koyaanisqatsi The standard value for the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8 deg C/km. Just compare observed mean surface temperatures vs height in the same regions, and compare to the lapse rate. In warming, the height/melting temperature point would follow approximately that curve, not the lapse rate. Which is why glaciers are very sensitive to temperature, not insensitive as the lapse rate relation would imply. Freezing level is not the only determinant either, for temperature, precipitation and their relationship is not constant, and sublimation may also be important.
125885. MP at 23:16 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Yet another article that fails to stimulate a more informed debate between the main protagonists of the pro and anti AGW camps. Why was Ian Plimer not invited to respond directly to the contents of this article and the subsequent postings? Who knows, we all may learn something from such an exchange of views which could help us to inch forward in creating a broader consensus of the issue of climate change and the most appropriate mitigating measures that should be implemented.
125886. RSVP at 22:26 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Berényi Péter You are definitely speaking in the right direction. I would add that temperature matters as far as total ocean temperature averages. The issue as you say is all about energy, not weather. Weather is but a symptom. The other side of the coin are sustainable energy alternatives, which are played way down at this site. Everybody is waving the flag for change, quantifying the problems, but zero quanitifying when it comes to alternatives.
125887. Berényi Péter at 22:18 PM on 30 January 2010
        Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
        OK, I see your point. However, small but still expensive solar panels, not produced locally and with no grid or battery backup whatsoever would not change global energy usage patterns. What is more, they would not even promote economic, intellectual & spiritual development in those regions. Glass beads for the natives.
125888. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 21:47 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        The article and the comments are interesting and have opened my eyes a bit more about why such discussions are so difficult. In an internet forum discussion when people do not know each other, we naturally tend to relate most to those with whom we agree. Therefore when an 'alarmist' responds impatiently to a 'skeptic' who is simply trolling or flaming or continually interrupting a discussion with silly throw-away lines, other skeptics react as if the impatient response is directed at all skeptics and 'group offense' is taken. Re scientists and the public, I'm betting that many scientists rarely mix with people of normal intelligence let alone people of low intelligence. When they socialise outside their field it is generally with people of equal or nearly equal intellect, so they aren't that practiced at communicating with the person in the street. Nor should they have to. That's the job of science communicators. Actors like Monckton appeal to emotion not intellect. For many people, emotion is a much more powerful force than reason. I bet most people who attend Monckton's performances don't even remember what his 'arguments' are, but they do remember the force with which he put them and that they agree with him, whatever he said.
125889. Berényi Péter at 21:45 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        doug_bostrom at 12:13 PM on 30 January, 2010 "I wonder if making surface temperature the main communications message regarding climate change is not a fairly big mistake. Surface temperature is a crummy proxy for measuring actual climate change, especially when oceans dominate the scene. We don't live in the ocean, after all, yet oceans are where most of the current energy perturbation is going" It IS a mistake. As you say, average surface temperature is a "crummy proxy". It's NOT just a matter of communication skills, it really is one. There is simply no physical law about "conservation of temperature", temperature budget can neither be measured nor calculated. The very concept does not make sense. Also, surface temperature records suffer from all kinds of biases, trends in global averages ARE controversial. Automatic pattern recognition based data homogenization as it is practiced by climate experts is not a standard statistical procedure. It is NOT used in any other branch of science, and for a reason. OHC (Ocean Heat Contents) is much better. Atmospheric & soil heat content is negligible compared to oceans, most of the stored energy in climate system is heat, because below 30 miles elevation LTH (Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium) holds, and even better, we do have an energy conservation law, so in theory energy budget can be both measured and calculated at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) as the difference between ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation) and OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) fluxes. OHC should follow rather closely the temporal integral of this quantity. Unfortunately measurement is not up to the task yet. The low temporal frequency part of ASR-TOA (which is amplified by integration) is far too noisy to draw any conclusion. On the other hand OHC, at least in the upper 750 m of oceans, if anything, is slightly decreasing right now. There is no known mechanism to transfer and sequester so much extra heat into the abyss (which is not measured) as projected by climate models. Sea level as a proxy to OHC is also problematic. The low temporal frequency part, which determines long term trends, is NOT measured by satellites. It should be calibrated by tide gauges. But they only measure relative elevation changes between sea level and adjacent seashore. As crustal blocks are in continuous vertical motion either up or down comeasurable to sea level changes, the calibration depends on choice of the gauge set to be calibrated against. However, all is not lost. At any one place there is a strong correlation between lightning activity and surface temperatures. You don't even have to be a climate scientist to verify this connection. Global lightning activity can be assessed by measuring Schumann resonance amplitudes at any one spot on the face of earth. And it is measured indeed, since mid 1960s (the effect itself was discovered in 1952). There is NO long term trend detected in Schumann resonance activity. It plainly contradicts current "mainstream" global warming theory. If theory is falsified by measurement, it should be abandoned. It is not a communication issue, just this is how science works. There is NO contradiction between low vs. high climate sensitivity according to Monckton & Plimer as you claim. The very concept of climate "forcing" is flawed. Global climate may be sensitive to some changes (like ice sheet cover, orbital variation or solar UV) while insensitive to others (like CO2). It is not correct to readily covert each forcing to W/m2. They act on different parts of the climate system, can and do have different structural effects. It is certainly not the case that rising carbon dioxide levels have no climatic consequences. The atmosphere should reconfigure itself to accommodate to the changing composition. Even if global integrated heat contents of the system is not going to any definite direction, just fluctuates around an equilibrium level, there still may be transients and regional effects. However, sticking to already falsified models based on the "constant upper troposphere relative humidity principle" (of course there is no law for conservation of RH) is definitely not the way to proceed. This way you don't even have a chance to guess what atmospheric reconfiguration processes might in fact be going on. Once again. Forget communication & messages, it is not the scientist's field of expertise. Go for truth instead.
125890. HumanityRules at 21:41 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        #5 ScaredAmoeba I had a look at http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php but they reference Gerlach 1991. It seems a well referenced estimate. Anybody read Gerlach 1991? It's an EOS paper so only AGU members get access. Is EOS all opinion, news, reviews, no original data? If that's the case does anybody know the reference for Gerlach estimates?
125891. RSVP at 21:34 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        doug_bostrom A better comparison is one who would like to have a coke with ice in the middle of the desert, and the closest thing to water is a mirage at a 100 yards.
125892. Doug Bostrom at 19:11 PM on 30 January 2010
        Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
        Berenyi Peter at 08:32 AM on 30 January, 2010 That post sort of goes "splat" against reality. "as soon as solar power becomes cheaper than other sources, it would not need government subvention on taxpayers' money.." In the real world situation in Africa I described, there is no other electrical power source and the installations are not paid for by taxation. "Until that time it may make sense (on increased cost, not exactly for the poor) if there is no power grid nearby. " In the real world situation I described, the users are definitively poor by almost any measure, and there is indeed (as I mentioned) no grid whatsoever. "It is not just about solar panels, battery packs are of more concern (and pricey)." In the real world situation I described, these are not sufficient deterrents to stop people from enjoying the benefits of electricity, solar in this case because that's all that's available. "Earth is round, sun is not up all the time. " In the real world situation I described, that is apparently not a problem for the consumers. They do not complain, they simply use the watthours available. You were describing something hypothetical. You are intelligent and a gifted writer, but you spend a lot of time in your imagination. I was actually describing something that has the amazingly wonderful and irreplaceable virtue of existence.
125893. Doug Bostrom at 18:50 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        RSVP at 18:18 PM on 30 January, 2010 "I think hypocrites would be a better term given that every computer that hits this site is ultimately powered by oil. " If I prefer beans but the menu offers only toast, does that make me a hypocrite? If somebody botches a gratuitous insult directed at nobody in particular, am I likely to add them to my list of influentials?
125894. RSVP at 18:18 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        To CoalGeologist You raise some interesting points, but my bias doesnt necessarily coincide with yours, which I find humorous. What I do agree with is that the debate tends to have a psychological component which only addresses this theme through mild (or not so mild) insults. But the debate also has a political cast not unlike the progressive movement that challenged monarchisms going back for the last 300 years or so. The oil companies and deniers are the royalists, and the opposition in fact are the rabble. The problem of course is when you chop off the head of the king, then what? Maybe rabble is too generous. I think hypocrites would be a better term given that every computer that hits this site is ultimately powered by oil.
125895. iskepticaluser at 17:55 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        YES! The communications aspect is critical if public understanding of the climate issue is ever to reach a point that would allow an effective, escalating and lasting price on carbon. Several issues come to mind: 1) the possibility that evidence - no matter how solid, unequivocal and well-presented (by me) - is filtered through preconceptions, value-frames and habits of thought (by others) before it even reaches the stage of conscious evaluation ("The Political Mind" by George Lakoff and "Don't Believe Everything You Think" by Thomas Kida are two references I'm exploring); 2) the question of how compact the AGW narrative could be made for newcomers to the issue: what is the smallest and most defensible set of arguments (lines of evidence) - supporting the conclusion that the threat is real, urgent, and solveable by doing THIS - that would engage enough people to the degree where they would in turn engage others? 3) the possibility (or need?) to address the continuous onslaught of deliberate misrepresentation (and libel?) of climate science and scientists (can the effectiveness of formal rules of evidence and right of cross-examination so evident in the Dover trial a few years back (concerning attempts to introduce creationism into Pennsylvania classrooms) be harnessed? Any ideas on how we can further explore - and act - on this issue? hdmclean@consciousclimate.com
125896. j k purc at 13:12 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        An outstanding article on an important issue, well done! It seems impossible to have a resoned debate if one of the parties is prepared to lie. It is even more difficult if one of the parties repeats the lies of others as if they were fact. Trying to drill down to find the source of the lies adds so much heat to the discussion as to make it an aggresive exchange. This is the model for almost every discussion I have had with deniers, some of whom I love. I am now intrigued as to how these otherwise fine and rational people come to be active in a movement which is so vehemently anti social. I think the appeal of the deniers is essentially emotional and science is apparently piss poor at appealing to emotional motivators. CoalGeologist and stevecarsonr offer excellent examples of combining emotional truth with rational argument, Thank You. I strongly agree that slow and patient is propobably the only way to really address the communication gap. Unfortunately it is difficult resist the temptation of a dismissive reply. I shall try harder, by starting at the beginning and avoiding the arrogance I have displayed in the past. There is no quick fix to this or any other complex problem...damn
125897. stevecarsonr at 12:57 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Jim Eager #24 Even then I am thinking that it would need to be demonstrated that the spatial distribution didn't matter to the climate result. Because albedo of solar insolation at the surface has a high variation, not so for LW flux received. From the billiard ball model it doesn't: heat in=heat out. But how about a 3-d model? I have a dumb question: ------------- I always assumed that the TOA figure for GHG was in relation to the effective SW climate absorbed radiation: E.g. 240W/m^2. Not referenced to 340W/m^2 of solar radiation averaged across the earth's surface prior to albedo effects, and not referenced to S=1367W/m^2. Then in "Radiation and Climate" by Taylor and Vardavas (only can see a few pages online) they compared GHG forcing to 1367W/m^2. Perhaps in a general non-technical way, it was only p9. So then I thought, maybe I have been making the wrong assumption all along. But I cannot find the answer anywhere. Everyone knows the answer. What is it?
125898. Doug Bostrom at 12:13 PM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        MattJ at 20:45 PM on 29 January, 2010 "But here is the real problem: scientists well aware of the threat of AGW have never taken a scientific approach to understanding how the general public forms opinions, and so is outmanouvered by professional deceivers like Monckton every time." Not by climate scientists, of course, but there is quite a bit of research being done into how people think about climate and what sort of mental models they employ in dealing with the topic. Some of the findings are encouraging, some are depressing. Significantly, the research says that differentiating between weather and climate really does continue to be a challenge for laypersons even when discussions on the topic are stripped of all distracting politics and acrimony. Is confusion between climate and weather a problem with listeners, or communicators? Looking at mental models research versus continued poor results with educating the public about climate change, I wonder if making surface temperature the main communications message regarding climate change is not a fairly big mistake. Surface temperature is a crummy proxy for measuring actual climate change, especially when oceans dominate the scene. We don't live in the ocean, after all, yet oceans are where most of the current energy perturbation is going. Look at Dr. Hansen's recent essay on winter cold snaps, how horribly messy it became because he had to deal with separating weather from climate plus natural variability. It may not be possible to convey a thorough understanding of surface temperature before eyes glaze over. Some means of expressing total heat content of the ocean-atmosphere system could well be a better way to go with communications. Calories might be a natural for this; laypeople do have a fairly good understanding of a calorie as a unit of energy. If Hansen had been speaking in his essay of total ocean-atmosphere heat content, none of the weather distraction would be needed and the variability portion would automatically be simpler and easier to convey.
125899. Berényi Péter at 11:37 AM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        "Greenhouse effect" of water vapor is determined not by column integrated moisture contents, but upper tropospheric specific humidity. There is a strong correlation between global lightning activity and upper troposphere water vapor contents, because it is deep convection in tropical clouds (also generating much lightning) that transports vapor up there. Global lightning activity can be monitored from anywhere on Earth through Schumann resonance amplitude history. Using this indicator, no long term trend is observed in lightning activity. So. There is no strong positive humidity feedback, climate models indicating otherwise are disqualified, climate sensitivity to elevated CO2 levels is low. Q.E.D. You can check it for yourself. $ wget -r -w 10 --random-wait ftp://www.ncedc.org/pub/em/sr/ UCB USGS NCEDC Magnetic Activity and Schumann Resonance http://www.ncedc.org/ncedc/em.intro.html ftp://www.ncedc.org/pub/em/README American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2001 LIGHTNING AND CLIMATE: THE WATER VAPOR CONNECTION C. Price and M. Asfur Tel Aviv University, Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Ramat Aviv, 69978, Israel http://www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1146.pdf 20th International Lightning Detection Conference 21-23 April 2008 - Tucson, Arizona, USA 2nd International Lightning Meteorology Conference 24-25 April 2008 - Tucson, Arizona, USA ABOUT SENSITIVITY OF CLOUD-TO-GROUND LIGHTNING ACTIVITY TO SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE CHANGES AT DIFFERENT TIME SCALES IN THE CITY OF SAO PAULO, BRAZIL O. Pinto Jr. and I.R.C.A. Pinto Brazilian Institute of Space Research ­- INPE São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil http://www.vaisala.com/files/About_sensitivity_of_cloud-to-ground_lightning.pdf "It is also generally expected that global lightning activity tends to increase at climate scale in response to global warming (Williams, 1992). However, at present time there do not appear to be any long term trends in the lightning activity (Price and Asfur, 2006b; Markson, 2007), although many recent studies indicate a high positive correlation between surface air temperature and lightning activity (Williams et al., 2005; Price and Asfur, 2006a; Sekiguchi et al., 2006). The lack of a long term trend in the lightning activity may in part explain why there is no specific reference to future changes in lightning activity in the last IPCC report (IPCC, 2007)"
125900. Riccardo at 11:28 AM on 30 January 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        stevecarsonr, you are 100% right and, i belive, it's what people try to do in this blog thanks to the high signal to noise ratio maintained by our guest. But although it's the right thing to do, it might not always work. Your reasoning assumes the will to learn and an open mind. Take for example the claim that global warming has stopped. You can explain interannual variability, you can explain the statistics of trend, you can explain the effect of ENSO; but what if they reply "yes, but whatever those nice things say, still the temperature has been flat in the last 5 years"? If they do not have a scientific background you might understand why they say so but you're not going to convince them. If they have s scientific background and you know they may understand those things, you'll not convince them either. In a few words, sometimes is ignorance, sometimes is misleading information, but other times is something else, a sort of psychologic block.

Prev  2510  2511  2512  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  Next