Warm winter events in the Arctic are becoming more frequent, lasting longer

July 11, 2017
The N-ICE2015 research vessel Lance on 17 February 2015. Credit: Paul Dodd / Norwegian Polar Institute

Arctic winter warming events - winter days when temperatures peak above minus 10 degrees Celsius - are a normal part of the Arctic climate over the ice-covered Arctic Ocean, but new research finds they are becoming more frequent and lasting longer than they did three decades ago.

A new study analyzing winter air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean from 1893 to 2017 shows that since 1980, an additional six Arctic winter warming events are occurring each winter at the North Pole and these events are lasting about 12 hours longer, on average. In December 2015, scientists recorded a temperature of 2.2 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Central Arctic, the warmest temperature ever recorded in this region from December through March.

Winter warming events have been observed by scientific excursions in the Arctic as early as the Fram expedition in 1896, when Norwegian explorers froze their ship into the ice in an attempt to reach the North Pole. But the prevalence and length of these events has broken records in recent years, according to authors of the new study in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

The new findings build on other evidence of Arctic warming. The average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2016 was the highest since 1900, and new monthly record highs were recorded for January, February, October and November 2016. Minimum sea ice extent at the end of summer 2016 tied with 2007 for the second lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1979, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Scientists on the N-ICE2015 campaign spot a polar bear wandering the thinning sea ice in the spring of 2015. Credit: Marcos Porcires / Norwegian Polar Institute

Because fall and winter is when Arctic sea ice grows and thickens, warmer winter air temperatures may further impede ice growth and expansion, accelerating the effects of global warming in the Arctic, according to the study's authors.

"These (winter warming) events are not unusual, but they are happening more frequently and with longer durations," said Robert Graham, a climate scientist at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromsø, Norway, and lead author of the new study.

The study attributes the increase in warming events to an increase in major storms in the Arctic. In the most recent years of the study, each warming event was associated with a major entering the region. During these storms, strong winds from the south blow warm, moist air from the Atlantic into the Arctic, Graham said.

"The warming events and storms are in effect one and the same," he said. "The more storms we have, the more warming events, the more days with temperatures greater than minus 10 degrees Celsius rather than below minus 30 degrees Celsius, and the warmer the mean winter is."

A snow buoy erected on Arctic sea ice near the coast of Alaska. Credit: Stefan Hendricks / Alfred Wegener Institute

The new study does not address what is causing the increase in major storms in the Arctic, but recent research shows that reduced ice cover and shifting weather patterns due to climate change may increase storms' frequency and impact, Graham said.

Natural variability can cause regional trends in Arctic warming, but the new study suggests human-caused climate change could be driving the increase in warm temperatures, according to Julienne Stroeve, Professor of Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London, who was an editor of the new paper.

Measuring Arctic temperatures

After the United Kingdom's winter storm Frank caused the North Pole to reach record temperatures in late December 2015 - passing above freezing for several hours - Graham and his colleagues realized they had observed similar events the previous winter during the N-ICE2015 field campaign. During N-ICE2015, scientists aboard a Norwegian research vessel froze their boat into the Arctic sea ice and gathered data from January to June of 2015. Graham wondered how common it was to observe these warm temperatures in the Arctic during the winter.

Calculated using ERA-Interim record, this figure shows (a) the number of distinct winter warming events each season, (b) the average duration of winter warming events each winter, and (c) the maximum duration of any winter warming event during a given winter, for the North Pole (red) and Pacific Central Arctic (blue) domains. Credit: Robert Graham / American Geophysical Union

"In particular, we wanted to look as far back in time as possible, and preferably using field data rather than climate models," Graham said.

Graham and his colleagues gathered data from field campaigns, drifting weather stations and buoys across the Arctic Ocean from 1893-2017 and analyzed the ERA-Interim record, a global atmospheric reanalysis provided by The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), from 1979-2016.

The researchers found Arctic winter warming events have been documented as far back as 1896, but these events have become more numerous and reached higher peak temperatures in recent decades. Since 1980, the number of winter warming events in the North Pole each year has more than doubled, from fewer than five events to more than 10 events, on average, and the average length of each event has grown from fewer than two days to nearly two and a half days. The total duration of winter warming events has increased from around 7 days per year to 21 days per year, on average, according to Graham.

The Atlantic side of the North Pole now has 10 warming events each winter, on average, while the Pacific Central Arctic has five such events, on average, according to the study. More storms come in to the Arctic from the Atlantic Ocean during winter, which results in more warming events on the Atlantic side of the North Pole.

This figure shows the location of North Pole (red) and Pacific Central Arctic (blue) domains. Credit: Robert Graham / American Geophysical Union

Two of the study's authors, Alek Petty and Linette Boisvert of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, previously researched one such storm that took place in the Arctic during the winter of 2015-2016.

"That particular cyclone, which lasted several days and raised temperatures in the region close to the melting point, hindered sea ice growth while its associated strong winds pushed the sea ice edge back, leading to a record low spring sea ice pack in 2016," said Petty and Boisvert. "This new study provides the long-term context we were missing, using direct observations going back the end of the 19th century. It shows that these warm events have occurred in the past, but they were maybe not as long-lasting or frequent as we're seeing now. That, combined with the weakened sea ice pack, means that winter storms in the Arctic are having a larger impact on the Arctic climate system."

The recent increase in the frequency and duration of Arctic events could negatively affect sea ice coverage and development, according to the study's authors. The storms that bring warm air to the Arctic not only prevent new ice from forming, but can also break up ice cover that is already present, according to Graham. Snowfall from the storms also insulates ice from the cold atmosphere that returns after the storms, which can further reduce ice growth, Graham said.

The next step for Graham and his colleagues is to understand what is fueling the increase of these storms and how they might change.

"It is difficult to say how much this pattern will amplify in the future," he said.

Explore further: Arctic warming to increase Eurasian extreme cold events

More information: Robert M. Graham et al, Increasing frequency and duration of Arctic winter warming events, Geophysical Research Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1002/2017GL073395

Related Stories

Arctic warming to increase Eurasian extreme cold events

May 16, 2017

In recent years, Arctic warming and extreme events have attracted widespread attention of the world. Recently, Dr. YAO Yao and Prof. LUO Dehai from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics investigated the impact of Ural blocking ...

2017 already marked by climate extremes: UN

March 21, 2017

Extreme weather and climate conditions, including Arctic "heatwaves", are continuing this year, after 2016 topped the global temperature charts and saw shrinking sea ice and surging sea levels.

Recommended for you

Researchers pin down one source of a potent greenhouse gas

November 20, 2017

A study of a Lake Erie wetland suggests that scientists have vastly underestimated the number of places methane-producing microbes can survive—and, as a result, today's global climate models may be misjudging the amount ...

Clay mineral waters Earth's mantle from the inside

November 20, 2017

The first observation of a super-hydrated phase of the clay mineral kaolinite could improve our understanding of processes that lead to volcanism and affect earthquakes. In high-pressure and high-temperature X-ray measurements ...

105 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2017
of course they are , corresponds to an uptick in fake news
EmceeSquared
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2017
snoosebaum:
of course they are , corresponds to an uptick in fake news


Shut up, lying fake news troll.
snoosebaum
Jul 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2017
snoosebaum:
my apologies but MSM are despicable scum


Just like a lying fake news troll, they're not apologizing. They're just doubling down. They've got Dunning Kruger disease.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2017
my apologies but MSM are despicable scum
I agree wholeheartedly - especially regarding outlets like Fox News. Why are you apologizing? Are you part of the MSM? What does this have to do with today's interesting article?
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2017
greenonions1:
my apologies but MSM are despicable scum
I agree wholeheartedly - especially regarding outlets like Fox News.


It's stunning how these clowns call actual facts "fake news" while they get their own news from "Fox News", which is just one vowel away from "Fakes News", so obvious is its scam. Even just "Fox" is enough for any child to know to run away because it will eat you as soon as you trust it.
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2017
of course they are , corresponds to an uptick in fake news


Precisely what do you think is fake about this study, or are you just idiotic enough to use the "fake news" label against anything you don't agree with?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2017
"Warm winter events in the Arctic are becoming more frequent, lasting longer"

.........in the meantime all the squareguy AGW types are still wondering why all this melting Arctic Ice is not raising ocean levels. They don't even know why that huge ice shelf that just broke off in Antarctica also won't raise ocean levels, but actually cause them to drop. Hey, squareguy, schneibo was never able to figure this out & so far I see you too are unable to comprehend the science of what happens when ice melts in water, that volumetric displacement s reduced when ice in water melts.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2017
Benni
all this melting Arctic Ice is not raising ocean levels.
https://www.scien...tic-ice/

Rignot and Dutton say that in the Arctic, the Greenland Ice Sheet poses the greatest risk for ocean levels because melting land ice is the main cause of rising seas—and "most of the Arctic's land ice is locked up in Greenland
EmceeSquared
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2017
Benni:
in the meantime all the squareguy AGW types are still wondering why all this melting Arctic Ice is not raising ocean levels.


No we are not. We know that floating ice doesn't raise sealevel when it melts.

But we're also not stupid trolls like you, admitting that floating ice is melting but insisting that there's nothing wrong, even as the floating ice barrier to melting the land ice melts away and threatens civilization.

We don't live in denial protected by strawman fallacies like you do. We live in reality protected by floating ice. That you're helping to melt by denying it's happening. You sick troll.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2017
@snoosebaum.
of course they are , corresponds to an uptick in fake news
Are you a fake-news bot employed by the Republican/Trump business/political interests lobby? I ask this because your post indicates you can't tell the difference between scientific report based on real data and fake news based on lies and propaganda such as much of the Fox News programming spewed out in the interests of their fossil/nuclear/political/business masters profiting from the pathetic gullibles who believe that Fox News is not fake news. In any case, a poster who cannot discern what is or is not fake news is just too sad, and an example of why humanity and the planet has come to this sorry pass. So you are a gullible dupe or a trolling bot. That is the only conclusion given your 'contribution' so far, snoosebaum. Pity.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2017
@Benni.
Warm winter events in the Arctic are becoming more frequent, lasting longer
In the meantime all the squareguy AGW types are still wondering why all this melting Arctic Ice is not raising ocean levels. They don't even know why that huge ice shelf that just broke off in Antarctica also won't raise ocean levels,.... Hey, squareguy, schneibo was never able to figure this out & so far I see you too are unable to comprehend the science of what happens when ice melts in water, that volumetric displacement s reduced when ice in water melts.
Mate, you know by now I have your best interests and the best interests of real objective science at heart. Yes? In that spirit, I again advise you to drop your strawman/disingenuous tactics in the Climate Change discussions. I long ago explained how break-away sea ice 'shelves' allow inland glacier ice 'rivers' to speed up and dump more land-ice (and land melt-water) into the ocean, hence the danger in these events. Ok? :)
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017
Of course there is a relation between fake news and confirmation bias , that being said, i have seen US state propaganda all my life starting with the Vietnam war, and the last US election was the perhaps most egregious example with 95% of coverage being anti Trump .
I kept track of the hot, hot , HOT!!!! arctic news last nov. and found MSM claims were countered by maps provided by this site

http://polarporta...erature/]http://polarporta...erature/[/url]

http://polarporta...erature/]http://polarporta...erature/[/url]
EmceeSquared
4.8 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2017
snoosebaum:
I kept track of the hot, hot , HOT!!!! arctic news last nov. and found MSM claims were countered by maps provided by this site

http://http://polarporta...erature/


Please post actual differences between "MSM claims" and maps at that site, as you claim.
SteveS
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2017
@Snoosebaum

So specifically what do you find objectionable about this article? As a factual report of a published study it certainly doesn't meet any definition of "fake news" I've ever seen.
Of course there is a relation between fake news and confirmation bias , that being said, i have seen US state propaganda all my life

As far as I'm aware this not a US site, and the paper was funded and authored by Norwegian and German institutes and scientists as well as American.

So please tell me why you consider either the paper or article "fake news"
95% of coverage being anti Trump

100% of Fukushima coverage was negative; sometimes you can't spin a disaster.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
funny how some things are considered disasters and others not , like the destruction of Libya and Syria , and the consequent ongoing destruction of Europe. And US -schmoo ess , its all Bilderburger - Globalism
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017

95% of coverage being anti Trump

''100% of Fukushima coverage was negative; sometimes you can't spin a disaster.
''

Glad to see you support lying for your cause , helps confirm my view of warmers

EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
snoosebaum:
95% of coverage being anti Trump

''100% of Fukushima coverage was negative; sometimes you can't spin a disaster.
''

Glad to see you support lying for your cause , helps confirm my view of warmers



See how the climate denier troll will even imply that there was something good in the Fukushima meltdowns. They're evil.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
snoosebaum:
funny how some things are considered disasters and others not , like the destruction of Libya and Syria , and the consequent ongoing destruction of Europe. And US -schmoo ess , its all Bilderburger - Globalism


Nobody said the destruction of Libya and Syria are not disasters. Europe is not undergoing destruction.

The endless rightwing propaganda has driven these trolls completely insane. They can't even type a post coherently, let alone stay on topic.

And when they claim to have a source that disagrees with whatever the "MSM" is (somehow Fox News isn't mainstream media, because it's their propaganda source), they cannot even respond when asked to provide the specific disagreements.

They're the kind of evil that's a mental disorder you can't really have sympathy for.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2017
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2017
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
snoosebaum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAKfHntZMw


What kind of cultist thinks anyone will watch a video link posted without even a description, when it's posted by an insane evil cultist? Well, an insane evil cultist.

A really lazy insane evil cultist. Who can't even parrot whatever propaganda they're shoveling - they just copy and paste it.

Troll quality reaches record lows every day.
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
Glad to see you support lying for your cause

Not a lie, an opinion.

I think I'm beginning to see the crux of your problem, you think anything you don't agree with is a lie, or in your terms "fake news", hence your problem with this article.

You still haven't told me why you believe this study is "fake news", where's the deliberate falsehood? or maybe you can see past your natural inclination and just say why you don't agree with it.
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
snoosebaum:
I kept track of the hot, hot , HOT!!!! arctic news last nov. and found MSM claims were countered by maps provided by this site

http://http://polarportal.dk/en/havisen-i-arktis/nbsp/sea-ice-temperature/


Please post actual differences between "MSM claims" and maps at that site, as you claim.


@snoosebaum

You never did respond EmceeSquared, possibly because you couldn't. Look at this graph

http://ocean.dmi....2016.png
from this site
http://ocean.dmi....x.uk.php
I don't think the Danish Meteorological Institute counts as "msm"
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2017
Ok i'll bite , u did all that typing , just a few vids to show where my views are influenced. Steyn and Jordan Peterson are very well educated and great speakers, Peterson vids are addictive so watch out ! I recommend Dick Morris and Bill Still also.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2017
snoosebaum:
Ok i'll bite , u did all that typing , just a few vids to show where my views are influenced.


Instead of showing us prerecorded "addictive" propaganda videos, why don't you back up the actual claim that your "influenced views" got you to? Actual differences between "MSM claims" and maps at that polarportal.dk site you claim to have personally kept track of.

Because you don't have any. You're just another liar troll who will believe anything cooked up for you by rightwing fake news, however foolish it is, so you don't have believe the truth about what harm you're really doing in your life.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
i won't play that game , you can scroll back at that link to Nov. -dec and see for yourself how cold/ warm it was .
Jordan Peterson propaganda ? LOL ! go grasshopper and learn !
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2017
snoosebaum:
i won't play that game , you can scroll back at that link to Nov. -dec and see for yourself how cold/ warm it was .


Oh, and that will tell me what the "MSM claims" were that you lied about comparing it to? Why would I waste a single moment of my time doing your homework? You're the one making the extraordinary claim, it's your job to back it up.

But you can't. Of course you can't, you're just another lying denial troll. You're an incompetent sociopath, addicted to propaganda, who thinks that "LOL" and "no, you make my argument" are rebuttals.

To you, lazy lying about the climate catastrophe you're making is a game. Because you're a covfefe: an incompetent sociopath.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2017
i won't play that game , you can scroll back at that link to Nov. -dec and see for yourself how cold/ warm it was .
Jordan Peterson propaganda ? LOL ! go grasshopper and learn !


You won't play it because the two studies are measuring different things! The report above is about air temperature, whereas the Danish site you linked to is measuring ice/ sea surface temperature! No bloody way will the effect of a swift warm spell show up in a measure of sea/ ice temperature on such short timescales. Should be bleeding obvious. If you aren't talking about the report above, then link to the story that you are talking about.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
If anybody wants to talk about Nov/ Dec 2016, then I suggest this graph, from the same site, regarding sea ice extent, would be a better guide:
http://polarporta...0713.png

You can see that the 2016 data, including Nov and Dec, is lower than the mean 1981-2000 value, and also lower than the preceding years, pretty much for the whole year. However, given that we don't know which story the poster is talking about, it is impossible to make any comparisons.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
jonesdave:
You can see that the 2016 data, including Nov and Dec, is lower than the mean 1981-2000 value, and also lower than the preceding years, pretty much for the whole year.


Punto.

However, given that we don't know which story the poster is talking about, it is impossible to make any comparisons.


More to the punto, given that snoosebaum doesn't know what they're talking about themself, it is impossible to draw any conclusion other than that they're a stupid, evil troll.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
interesting , here is one of the hot articles from last yr https://www.thegu...ientists

notice the sea ice graph is different from the jonesdave one
and
http://polarporta...erature/

don't know if my link will show the date nov 22 linked the the guardian article

looks pretty cold compared to the 'hot ' article

.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
and to return to my original jibe , looking thru all the MSM hot articles its clear they have a bias , no opposing views allowed . When someone lies to you once, thats it ! , trust is gone.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2017
snoosebaum:
here is one of the hot articles from last yr https://www.thegu...ientists

notice the sea ice graph is different from the jonesdave one
and
http://polarporta...erature/


The polarportal.dk page you're linking to is a map of sea ice *temperatures*. The theguardian.com page you're linking to is a graph of sea ice *extent*. They're completely different.

Your polarportal.dk page has a tab for its sea ice *extent* graph, but it is for 2013-2016 and the mean 1981-2000. The extent graph at theguardian.com is of 2012, 2016 and the average 1981-2010. Of course those graphs aren't the same, because they're for very different collections of years.

That's what it's like when I have to do your homework for you. Because you're a covfefe: an incompetent sociopath.

When someone lies to you once, thats it ! , trust is gone.


You blew your trust with your lying "fake news" projection, covfefe. And now you've *proven* you're nothing but a covfefe.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2017
interesting , here is one of the hot articles from last yr https://www.thegu...ientists

don't know if my link will show the date nov 22 linked the the guardian article

looks pretty cold compared to the 'hot ' article

.


Wrong. Read the article. Temps should be -25 C. Use the map at the Danish site and look at the colour bar for -25 C. Then go to 30/11/2016, and scroll back. Lots of green. Should be blue. Not surprising, as the Danish researchers mentioned in the article are almost certainly the same ones responsible for the website! Deary me.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
MC , no, you are incorrect both are sea ice extent 2016 , as i said

http://polarporta...0713.png

https://www.thegu...ientists

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
JD, 30/11/16 blue , between 17 -22 yes lots of grn , BFD
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
mc , oops u are right , but the hot article is leaving out 2012 to make it look worse
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
JD, 30/11/16 blue , between 17 -22 yes lots of grn , BFD


Actually, I made an error by reading the article too quickly; the -25C was an ***air*** temp. So the maps won't tell you anything about that. They do say, however: "In addition, sea temperatures (were) averaging nearly 4C higher than usual in October and November." I doubt that you could see that in such simplified maps, with hard to differentiate shades of colour. So, in effect, the maps on the Danish site are of little, if any use in trying to disprove this story, because they aren't measuring air temps. You would have to trust that the scientists aren't making stuff up for the fun of it, and hoping against hope that people who are also up that way won't contradict them. Not sure how many people would need to be in on this conspiracy!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
Hmm, the easiest way of doing this is to check the archive weather data. Go here:
http://www.weathe...mp;CEL=C
Pick out one of the Greenland weather stations, and then choose the data for the relevant time period. I tried it and found that it varied from a few degrees + to about -8 C. Which is considerably higher than -25 C.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
tried that , quaanaq , different yrs , not much data , nord even less , 2016 doesn't look that much diff.

covfefe , Trump kept his not too bright enemies busy for weeks with that one .
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
tried that , quaanaq , different yrs , not much data , nord even less , 2016 doesn't look that much diff.


Yes, well that would appear to be due to the temperature readings being taken close to the pole, as it turns out. I have no idea where those places are in Greenland, tbh. Probably not a great choice.
This page has a map and graphs of the temperature anomalies:
https://wwa.clima...ec-2016/
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2017
snoosebaum:
mc , oops u are right , but the hot article is leaving out 2012 to make it look worse


Even when you admit you're wrong, after spewing garbage this whole thread (and elsewhere), you've got some nerve with some "but".

But nothing. You're wrong, and far worse: you're *wrong headed*. Let me do you a favor and explain something essential about you: you've got Dunning Kruger disease. Get help, and shut up until you're recovered.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Jul 15, 2017
JD , from your article ,statements like this , [ i'm sure its all good ,lol] raise suspicions because they seem opaque.

''we computed the November-December averaged temperature around the North Pole (80–90 ºN) in the ERA-interim reanalysis augmented with the ECMWF analysis and forecast up to December 25 and persistence up to December 31. ''

EMC , 'liberalism' find a cure !
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
JD , from your article ,statements like this , [ i'm sure its all good ,lol] raise suspicions because they seem opaque.

''we computed the November-December averaged temperature around the North Pole (80–90 ºN) in the ERA-interim reanalysis augmented with the ECMWF analysis and forecast up to December 25 and persistence up to December 31. ''

EMC , 'liberalism' find a cure !


You don't understand it therefore it's suspicious

https://www.ecmwf...-interim

if you're suspicious of everything you don't understand you must be one suspicious SOB
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2017
JD , from your article ,statements like this , [ i'm sure its all good ,lol] raise suspicions because they seem opaque.

''we computed the November-December averaged temperature around the North Pole (80–90 ºN) in the ERA-interim reanalysis augmented with the ECMWF analysis and forecast up to December 25 and persistence up to December 31. ''

EMC , 'liberalism' find a cure !


I can't be bothered to find out, either. However, if I was going to criticise the work, I bloody well would! And, perhaps, therein lies the difference - the scientific method coming face to face with people who are, essentially, scientifically challenged, but who have what is little more than a belief that the scientists must be wrong. That is what is annoying when you get some U.S. senator being a dickhead, and calling AGW a religious belief! No, religion merely requires faith, which is all he's got. The evidence is all on the other side. Irony, much?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
Unfortunately this is all the standard #climatedenier strawman lie that if temperature doesn't increase monotonically everywhere then climate change must be "wrong."

It's a silly argument, and always has been, but the #climatedeniers never seem to figure out the whole "climate is not weather" thing.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
snoosebaum:
EMC , 'liberalism' find a cure !


Spoken like a true rightwing welfare queen. But that's Dunning Kruger disease at work, in your every post.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2017
Anyway, why do Yanks (in particular) seem to think that this debate is about liberals versus conservatives? Never got that. As I see it, it is about those who understand and perform the science, and the big businesses that stand to lose from the implications of this scientific consensus.
Are the scientists all card carrying pinko lefties? Does having a high IQ and a scientific education qualify one as a liberal? Bloody strange thought process, if you ask me. Then again, never could get my head around America.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Jul 15, 2017
jd , good question , i think scientists a caught up in the political thing now with Trump . The so called left is now driven the postmodernists ie Derrida who are marxists disappointed that capitalism didn't collapse from worker discontent [ instead they got iphones and r happy]. The postmodern tactic is try to undermine our fundamental definitions , male, female , logic and replace them with their dictates and ultimately it will be about money. They move from one ''oppressed ' group cause to another and that may include climate scientists.
'' having a high IQ and a scientific education qualify one as a liberal? , in part yes because universites are hotbeds of postmodernism and the political establishment comes from there. I Are you in the UK ? read Martin Armstrong for a view of Europe , his world view is unusual'' but predictive

and i suspect big business will find a way to gain, whatever
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
@snoos,
Yes, I'm in the UK, for what it's worth. And, imho, without Europe we'll be fuxxed. But that is by the by. I just think that there are some very strange double standards involved here. When you need drugs (legal), who do you trust? When you need to use your GPS, who are you trusting? When you connect to the internet, who made that possible? I just think that there has been so much FUD thrown onto this issue by certain sections of the media, energy businesses, and their puppets on the Hill, that any claims of it being a liberal conspiracy are laughable. That is purely an invention of the aforementioned parties, and is purely in their own self interest.
As for universities producing liberals; well, maybe so. The smartest people tend to go to uni. Has anyone ever thought that perhaps they're liberal because they're smarter? Maybe we need a study that correlates IQ with voting intentions :) Mind you, a lot study law. I wouldn't trust those buggers.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Jul 15, 2017
''Has anyone ever thought that perhaps they're liberal because they're smarter? Maybe we need a study that correlates IQ with voting intentions :) ''

actually they have ; at risk of ''posting propaganda '' ! ,,,,, Jordan Peterson again, professor of clinical psychology [ so obviously a real deplorable ,sarc ] at Uof T

https://www.youtu...-jOdPTN8

and he has a ton of stuff posted which is a real education .
snoosebaum
not rated yet Jul 15, 2017
and on IQ

https://www.youtu...pBj1LjSU

https://www.youtu...2h2_gbos

re intelligence and wisdom , there is little relation
snoosebaum
not rated yet Jul 15, 2017
where do SJW's come from ?

https://www.youtu...BYROA7Hk
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
Argumentum ad youtubum. That's where I normally sign off. Enough of that stuff around from pseudoscience cranks.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
jonesdave:
Anyway, why do Yanks (in particular) seem to think that this debate is about liberals versus conservatives?


Because in the US, to be a Conservative you have to strongly ignore all kinds of evidence, especially history. You have to be easy prey for the kind of propaganda that tells White Christian straight males, and those in their culture who are subservient to them, that the time when that supremacy was barely if ever challenged was a golden age, unlike "today's hell". A golden age for all, before "someone" provoked non Whites/Christians/straights/males to upsetting the traditional order: the enemy within. The propaganda tells those losing their supremacy that all their current problems come from allowing those "domestic enemies" to "control society".

An imaginary, 1950s TV America, corporate, burning oil, cigarettes and crosses. Sponsored by the actual enemy within: petrofuel corps, theocrats, unreconstructed racists, and now evidently foreign enemies.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
EmceeSquared:
jonesdave:
why do Yanks (in particular) seem to think that this debate is about liberals versus conservatives?


An imaginary, 1950s TV America, corporate, burning oil, cigarettes and crosses. Sponsored by the actual enemy within: petrofuel corps, theocrats, unreconstructed racists, and now evidently foreign enemies.


Conservative networks, from think tanks through theocratic unions (originally the "Moral Majority" - that was neither) through billionaires like the oily Koch brothers and the theocratic Mercers, have steadily manufactured endless propaganda to isolate people from the social integration that gave "outsiders" their rightful democratic power, and from those outsiders' allies among White straight Christian males.

It's fascism, so it's got a small number of rich, powerful people orchestrating the longterm. So it prioritizes propaganda, especially TV. That's why its useful idiots don't understand arguments, but push TV talking heads.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2017
If you are wearing a mask and threatening people , YOUR'RE the fascist !

haha EMC = a good example of a lunatic liberal , gonna kill all dem white folk
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
Here's the fallacious thinking that's a product of propaganda instead of learning logic:

snoosebaum:
If you are wearing a mask and threatening people , YOUR'RE the fascist !


Not all who wear masks and threaten people are fascists. There's plenty of bandits and gangsters who aren't fascists. There are plenty of fascists who don't wear masks.

haha EMC = a good example of a lunatic liberal , gonna kill all dem white folk


I'm not a "liberal" (though anyone not in their cult is a "liberal"). I didn't say kill anyone, or to do anything to "white folk". Also note how the rightwing troll descends from fallacy to racist mockery.

As Voltaire wrote (in French, shortly before the French Revolution): Whoever can make you absurd can make you unjust. The design goal of the rightwing propaganda these trolls consume instead of thinking is to make them unjust. Because justice has been a great setback for the propaganda sponsors.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2017
So what's the difference posting articles or YouTube to support an argument ?

Emc I think you are describing the old right , I never liked them either but the extreme left is now less palatble , right is now left.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2017
snoosebaum:
So what's the difference posting articles or YouTube to support an argument ?

Not much. The difference is when you actually make some argument yourself that you actually support with either an article or a video. You have to specifically cite the part of the article or video that supports your argument, to at least prove you read/watched the article/video yourself. Instead of forcing the person you're trying to persuade to wade through the whole content you posted, often without supporting your actual argument.

Emc I think you are describing the old right , I never liked them either but the extreme left is now less palatble , right is now left.


That's just another meaningless word salad that comes from consuming propaganda instead of thinking for yourself. I looked (fruitlessly) at some of the videos you posted, and was sickened by their neverending buzzwords interconnected by fallacious assertions and circular arguments. Propaganda and nothing but.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2017
The top five US military bases that are threatened by climate change, finally recognized by the House of Representatives' budget bill: http://foreignpol...ecurity/

We now have the Republicanrussians finally admitting that global warming is actually happening and something needs to be done... but they're so dumb they can't connect the dots to the Paris agreement, or to climate change science. Anyone actually paying attention would note that they seem to speak out of both sides of their mouths. So, are they stupid or corrupt? That's the only question that remains to be answered here.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2017
emc, so u must be quite the genius ! having constructed your world with your own thoughts with no inputs from others
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2017
snoosebaum:
emc, so u must be quite the genius ! having constructed your world with your own thoughts with no inputs from others


No, I have "constructed my world" mostly from inputs from others. I just learned critical thinking first, so I easily reject fallacies and just plain BS. Fallacies like the strawman fallacy you just tried there.

Why do you bother trying to insult me? Every time you try I just swat you away like a fly. You never land a punch. Everything I say about your low quality lands true. Give it up already, it's like I'm punching a baby.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Jul 16, 2017
so Jordan Peterson is BS ? If u say that is so then u r a lunatic
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2017
snoosebaum:
so Jordan Peterson is BS ? If u say that is so then u r a lunatic


The cultist cannot comprehend criticism of their charismatic leaders. Anyone who can't see the cult's intrinsic absolute truth is insane. When the cult pushes their buttons, the cultist will see anyone in the cult's way as not human, and eliminated without a twinge of conscience.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2017
Da Schneib:
So, are they stupid or corrupt? That's the only question that remains to be answered here.


They're evil. Not supernatural evil, but the category that transcends stupidity and corruption (which come with the territory). It's a kind of insanity. It's suigenocidal, but not this financial quarter.
snoosebaum
Jul 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2017
So is antifa a cult ?
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2017
snoosebaum:
So is antifa a cult ?


Aren't you in a theofascist cult? Yes you are.

What does that have to do with science? Nothing.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2017
so you ARE antifa , just keep talking , all the more you describe yourself .

What does that have to do with science? Nothing.

since we agree there is a conflict between science and politics
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017
snoosebaum:
so you ARE antifa


No, I'm COVFEFE. And you're the Queen of England. Some people say a cucumber tastes better pickled.

since we agree there is a conflict between science and politics


No, we agree on nothing. Except that I say you're incapable of adult thought, and you act exactly as I say you do.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@snoosebaum.
..there is a conflict between science and politics
That "conflict" is 'manufactured' only by disgraceful crooks/liars etc, on one particular side of politics. Politics and Science itself are not to blame; it's those that misuse and abuse the political system/power to take advantage of the gullibility of the many 'on their side' of politics who have no real comprehension of either the subtleties or the complexities involved...or the seriousness of the evolving situation with GW which is only just starting to produce violent 'transitional chaos' events, which will get worse as much of the natural 'buffering' systems/sinks become exhausted/inconsequential in 'the new norm' global climate patterns/temps regimes. Good luck to us all, even to those currently abusing the political system, for they know not what real otherwise avoidable serious damage they will be responsible for if they do not come to their senses/honesty. Et Tu, snoosebaum?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
Emc , you just keep describing yourself , lol

& WE " have no real comprehension of either the sublties or the complexities involved "". That's true of most things,

greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
Snoose
WE " have no real comprehension of either the sublties or the complexities involved "". That's true of most things
Who is WE? And what should WE do, IF we draw that conclusion? Example - cancer is highly complex, and there is much to learn. IF you conclude that WE have no real comprehension of this complexity, do you stop acting on the best knowledge we have today, or do you listen to the experts, and act as intelligently as possible on the knowledge that we do have?
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
snoosebaum:
Emc , you just keep describing yourself , lol


The rightwing troll is defined by denial, which forces projection of their own dysfunction onto whoever confronts them with it. They never get past the kindergarten playground "I know you are but what am I" defense. But everyone else can see they're a child overwhelmed by a complex world, thrashing in humiliation.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
Snoose
WE " have no real comprehension of either the sublties or the complexities involved "". That's true of most things
Who is WE? And what should WE do, IF we draw that conclusion? Example - cancer is highly complex, and there is much to learn. IF you conclude that WE have no real comprehension of this complexity, do you stop acting on the best knowledge we have today, or do you listen to the experts, and act as intelligently as possible on the knowledge that we do have?


and what is the usual outcome in such situations ?,,, but climate , we can '''move the heavens ! "" and change it. Clearly a cult of supermen !
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
EMC , yup, doing it again , time for some of that ''critical thinking '' . You need some 'intergrative complexity '' like Obama .
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
snoosebaum:
but climate , we can '''move the heavens ! "" and change it. Clearly a cult of supermen !


No, just billions of humans polluting. Your confessed inability to know anything isn't common to all of us, nor is your narcissistic inability to know that either.

You're a Dunning Kruger zombie.

I'm done being this troll's only human contact. They're hopeless.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
Snoose
and what is the usual outcome in such situations ?
My question was pretty straightforward - but you totally failed to give anything close to an answer. The usual outcome in terms of cancer - depends on many factors. You can't answer the question you asked. In some cancers (glioblastoma for example) - the prognosis is very poor. So do we act on best information, or ignore the science - and take pot shots from the peanut gallery?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
From Snoose's own article
There is reason to believe that Southeast Asia will start following the global trend away from coal
Baby steps. We have never been at a moment in history at which renewable energy is the cheapest option. Hang on to your hat...
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
so why are they going coal ? as to questions , this class of question is less determinate than say the outcome of a simple mechanical problem [& if you fix cars u know thats not always simple either LOL] .
And despite EMCs various name callings i am open minded about this , and yes i know its about the tropopause and water vapor > my problem is i've seen so much lying from the establishment all my life and its never been more extreme , i want to know the opposing views. They seem to have some merit . We are living in a very polarized political climate and people have become dogmatic . There are monetary interests to be protected on both sides. Critical thinking,,
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
snoosebaum:
so why are they going coal ?


FTFA: "What is driving the coal expansion?

Most of the Southeast Asian countries pursuing new coal plants have heavily entrenched coal lobbies which have successfully set roadblocks to shifting to renewable energy – as do Japan and Korea."

The establishment is the polluters, who are lying to you and everyone else.

In Japan for example its power utilities are so corrupt that they ran Fukushima into meltdowns. South Korea is even more of a "command economy" than Japan's: centrally planned, organized in permanent war with N Korea, a few giant conglomerates like Samsung and Daewoo that are based on taxpaid contracts that dominate the entire national economy. Why shouldn't their petrofuel establishment stay stuck in the 20th Century?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
i want to know the opposing views. They seem to have some merit
Is any one stopping you? The question is still on the table. What to do - when you of course know that you have limited knowledge (such as with cancer - or fixing cars)? You are free to explore alternative treatments to cancer all you want. Or climate change. Asking to see both sides of an argument - is not the same as recognizing the scientific consensus on a subject - and then taking action that is going to affect us all. Explore herbal medicine all you want - but don't think you have the right to control what others think do. I am in favor of the precautionary principle - and looking for win/win/win strategies. Energy wise - renewables fits that bill, and apart from the cost issue - so does nukes. Bottom line for me - is that we have to get off fossil fuels.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
my problem is i've seen so much lying from the establishment all my life and its never been more extreme , i want to know the opposing views. They seem to have some merit
@snoose
1- they only have merit because you follow the politics, not the science

2- this is, by definition, conspiracist ideation. you don't trust authority because you believe they're out to deceive you

if you were to forego the political sources of argument, you would clearly see the science and it's message

the problem is: you're so tied to the politics that you can't see the forest for the tree stuck in your eye

this is called intentional bias on your part
you choose to ignore the science because you want to believe the "opposing views"

there are plenty of opposing views in science regarding how to deal with AGW, but there is absolutely no opposition on what it is or whether it exists or not, let alone the major influences in the world today
(all of which you also deny, BTW)
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2017
I don't believe anything I observe and have opinions . So my disagreements tend to be with those who are dogmatic . I am lukewarm , I think that fits the result so far. I know many feel they have to act on the worst possibility but by their own admission any result will be unmeasurable
. There are bigger problems, will Europe look like Lagos or Lagos look like Europe ?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2017
In this case science becomes politics , it's always a corrupt reality .
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
snoosebaum:
I don't believe anything I observe and have opinions .


What does that mean?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
snoose
There are bigger problems, will Europe look like Lagos or Lagos look like Europe ?
So now - who is introducing politics - into the topic of science? I assume you are asking questions about immigration here. This has nothing to do with the science of climate change. 2 problems can exist simultaneously. Of course - changes in the Earth's climate - may lead to population shifts - an interesting area to study. How do you determine which is the bigger problem? Are you implying that Lagos is bad, and we don't want Europe to look like that? Is that not primarily an issue of politics, and economics? Perhaps European exploitation of Africa over the past few centuries had something to do with the current situation in Africa - so perhaps we could take some responsibility to help the people of Africa figure out a path forward out of their relative poverty. Seems that China is working on that one. Perhaps Europe could help too.
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
Snoosebaum

I don't believe anything I observe and have opinions .

of course they are , corresponds to an uptick in fake news


You appear to believe this study is "Fake News". Why, in your opinion, is that?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
I don't believe anything I observe
@snoose
lets hope you don't drive, then
So my disagreements tend to be with those who are dogmatic
bullsh*t
your disagreements are all exactly the same as the typical scientifically illiterate crowd being politically manipulated by those who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo for financial gain

you have yet to make a scientific argument - it's predominantly political and when you attempt to make an argument from science it's usually because:
1- you don't know about the science
2- your source is political, not science
3- you don't understand the science
I know many feel they have to act on the worst possibility
no, you have that wrong

they know that inactivity will make things worse

that is an entirely different thing

that is not to say there aren't those who focus on the worst case scenario, mind you
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2017
@snoose cont'd
In this case science becomes politics , it's always a corrupt reality .
and yet again, you have it wrong

in this case the politicians and political pundits, along with those who are threatened, have made it political and are attempting to use your own base fears against you

this is why people are saying that AGW supporters are wanting everyone to return to the cave-man era with one world government - there is absolutely no evidence of that, yet it's a persistent argument

or perhaps the argument that if it's not talking about global warming, it's not getting funded?
a quick look at google scholar will prove that to be bullsh*t
yet again, this is a persistent argument

then there is the conspiracy theorists... there is evidence of conspiracy, but not the one the deniers want: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

the evidence speaks for itself
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2017
@snoose last
so lets look at your beliefs in your own words:
corresponds to an uptick in fake news
but where is the evidence of fake?
none
but climate , we can '''move the heavens ! "" and change it. Clearly a cult of supermen !
we have evidence that humans have changed the climate & inactivity will make it worse
where is your argument for any moderation of CO2, a known threat?
gonna kill all dem white folk
do i really need to point out the stupidity of this oft-repeated denier rhetoric?

point being: you object to AGW science regularly, but you have yet to make arguments from a valid scientific point that is supported by evidence because you think there is too much complexity

just because something is complex doesn't mean we can't know anything about it
case in point: the sun - we don't know "everything", but we have a pretty good evidence based idea why it shines and how it works

same with climate

so... what is your argument, really?
snoosebaum
Jul 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
you guys are funny
@snooze
you are not
M pythons argument clinic
sounds pretty much like what you're doing...

thanks for validating that one

at least now we know that you're not here for anything but discord and trolling
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2017
snoosebaum:
you guys are funny , M pythons argument clinic


Denial projection:
snoosebaum:
I don't believe anything I observe and have opinions .


What are you talking about already?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2017

In this case science becomes politics , it's always a corrupt reality .

''and yet again, you have it wrong ''

some scientists demand change to public policy , how does that not become political ?

u like to argue a self evident statement ,

https://www.youtu...KtI6gn9Y

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2017
@snooze brain
In this case science becomes politics , it's always a corrupt reality
no
politics becomes politics and misinterprets the science
and yes, politics can be corrupt
some scientists demand change to public policy , how does that not become political
1- why do they demand change?
before you answer, read up on historical examples of science demanding change like: leaded gas, CFC's, vaccinations, medicine in general, forensics, pathology etc (there is a sh*tload to choose from, but any example will do)

2- the science is just the science
period
full stop
you are confusing the actions *because of the science* with *the science*, which are two separate things
https://www.youtu...KtI6gn9Y
just because you ignore reality doesn't mean you are the only one who can see you're an idiot
https://www.youtu...OSLCR2hE
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2017
- or science becomes economics and misrepresents the science

- changing to unleaded gas is less problematic [ political] than eliminating gas or all energy consumption
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
@snooze permanently
or science becomes economics and misrepresents the science
no, that would be economics misrepresenting
unless, of course, your logic is Python-ish: https://www.youtu...youtu.be]https://www.youtu...youtu.be[/url]

changing to unleaded gas is less problematic [ political] than eliminating gas or all energy consumption
yep
you went full stupid with Python logic: https://www.youtu...youtu.be]https://www.youtu...youtu.be[/url]

1- strawman and irrelevant

2- who said anything about "eliminating gas or all energy consumption"??

only you have

so, what you fear is your own response and your own stupidity based upon your own political rhetoric
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2017
@ cap'n stumpified

''who said anything about "eliminating gas or all energy consumption''

then , we are all 'guilty of our carbon footprint' in the MSM version of things , but we changed over to unleaded without issue [ and don't try drifting off the context i'm referencing

''why do they demand change?
before you answer, read up on historical examples of science demanding change like: leaded gas, CFC's, vaccinations, medicine in general, forensics, pathology et''

and climate science does become economics in terms of grants , jobs, carbon taxes , so there is incentive to bias.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2017
and don't try drifting off the context i'm referencing.


Talking about remaining on topic, You still haven't told me why you believe this study is "fake news", where's the deliberate falsehood? What do you consider a lie and where is you evidence?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
@your snoose is up your baum
and don't try drifting off the context
before i can do that you have to:
1- make a coherent point
2- include some verifiable facts that are relevant to your point
3- remain in one context, or at least something relevant to the point (unlike your last few delusional pachinko posts posts)
and climate science does become economics in terms of grants , jobs, carbon taxes , so there is incentive to bias
no, there isn't in science

bias means destroyed reputation which then removes "grants, jobs" or any taxes

and it's not a US thing, either - it's a WORLD thing

so your intimation of conspiracy to commit fraud with bias must include collusion between cultures who not only still hate each other, but hate americans, bacon and can't agree on what's ok to eat in a regular diet

so ya got nothing but a bunch of delusional BS, but you seem to think it's relevant

evidence is the key - and ya got nothin' but crap

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.