Roy Spencer, PhD. Roy Spencer, PhD.
Menu
Search
OMG! ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING SNOWSTORM!!

I really can’t decide whether I should hate Al Gore… or thank him for giving me something to write about.

He has caused the spread of more pseudo-scientific incompetence on the subject of global warming (I’m sorry — climate change) than any climate scientist could possibly have ever accomplished. Who else but a politician could spin so much certainty out of a theory?

As someone who has lived and breathed meteorology and climate for 40 years now, I can assure you that this winter’s storminess in the little 2% patch of the Earth we like to call the ‘United States of America’ has nothing to do with your SUV.

Natural climate variability? Maybe.

But I would more likely chalk it up to something we used to call “WEATHER”.

Let me give you a few factoids:

1) No serious climate researcher — including the ones I disagree with — believes global warming can cause colder weather. Unless they have become delusional as a result of some sort of mental illness. One of the hallmarks of global warming theory is LESS extratropical cyclone activity — not more.

2) If some small region of the Earth is experiencing unusually persistent storminess, you can bet some other region is experiencing unusually quiet weather. You see, in the winter we get these things called ‘storm tracks’….

3) Evidence for point #2 is that we now have many years of global satellite measurements of precipitation which shows that the annual amount of precipitation that falls on the Earth stays remarkably constant from year to year. The AREAS where it occurs just happen to move around a whole lot. Again, we used to call that “weather”.

4) Global average temperature anomalies (departures from seasonal norms) have been falling precipitously for about 12 months now. Gee, maybe these snowstorms are from global cooling! Someone should look into that! (I know…cold and snow from global cooling sounds crazy….I’m just sayin’….)

I could go on and on.

Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??

But I hope I can still save a few of those out there who are still capable of independent reasoning and thought.

NOW can I go to bed?

arrow88 Responses

  1. Barry Bullington
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    So its okay to use the term “weather” again? I want to get my terms right.

  2. Sean2829
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    C’mon Dr. Spencer, you don’t really want him to be quiet do you? There are precious few people shoveling snow in the northease or the upper mid-west that are thinking about climate change excepth those making plans to go to Florida or Arizona for a couple of weeks in February. Mr. Gore has found a most effective way to recruit climate skeptics.

  3. RW
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Yes. AMEN!

  4. Singer98406
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    What’s up with the discover websites ch5 temp chart? Satellite more broke than it’s been for the last couple of months?

    You indicated in a post almost a year ago now that site was going to switch to data from the AQUA satellite. This still in the works?

  5. Frank K.
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    I’m one of those northeasterners who will be shoveling large amounts of snow (again!) tomorrow and Wednesday. This has been one of the snowiest winters I can remember in my 15 years in New Hampshire, but then last year and other recent years have been less so. What is hilarious are all of the disaster stories that came out just a few years ago about how winter would be snowless in New Hampshire and all of the ski resorts would go out of business. Of course, this year has been fabulous for NE skiing, and all of the resorts are doing great! Oh well, the manic AGW types still have the summer ice (melt) follies to look forward to…

  6. linzel
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Please stick with the scientific analysis. You do not do the snivelling sarcasm well. It just makes you sound bad and makes me NOT want to read your blog. I want to respect you opinion but this one made it harder. Stick with what you know – clouds, radiation, etc etc.

  7. Andy Roper
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    What has Al Gore said?

  8. Ray
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Singer98406 says:
    “What’s up with the discover websites ch5 temp chart? Satellite more broke than it’s been for the last couple of months?”

    As far as I can tell the CH5 and sea surface data haven’t been updated since January 25th/26th either. Also, no sea surface figure for January 1st.
    I am new to using the discover site, so is this normal?

  9. HR
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    There really are enough people ranting about Gore and the like. As linzel said it might be good to stick to the stuff that has made your blog a standout. I thought the first Dessler post was slightly spoilt by the distraction of you speculating on the timing of the publication. Your commitment to the science since has been engaging, if only Dessler had choosen to continue the dialog.

    So on the science do you have any favorite links to show 3)? As an Aussie I’ve taken a recent interest in precipitation and read some work that confirms your position but I’m always eager to read more. I’ve been curious if this stands outside the expectations of the IPCC concensus. I had the understanding a warmer world was also a wetter world!

  10. DEEBEE
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    @linzel — Are you theblog police? Other than science Roy knows his opinion very well. Your might notlike it, the beauty is that you can move on.

  11. TWW
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Dr. Spencer:

    When I read your blog at times I wonder if you should be somehow putting something in your posts to show readers what ‘hat’ (for lack of a better term) you are wearing. One hat is Dr. Spencer acting like an objective climate scientist with professional opinions and the other is Roy the private citizen with nonscientific opinions. You use those smiley buttons at times. Maybe you could gets some hat icons:)

  12. Fred from Canuckistan
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Roy . .puleeeze try and keep up.

    It is “Climate Disruption” now . . . Climate Change is like 2009.

  13. Phil
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    @ linzel, HR, TWW

    You probably allow yourself to experiment with different tacks in blog writing just before you go to bed yourselves – give the man a break, for crying out loud – go catch some sunlight or something. Why don’t you channel some of that energy you’ve reserved for hassling Roy for being human into scientifically refuting/supporting what he said with some well, I dunno… research (links etc) in your comments? Why make him do all the work while you sit back & throw stones? Aint that half the fun of a blog that allows comments?

  14. stephen richards
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    I agree !! Dr Roy is kind enough to allow us access to his thoughts and work. He doesn’t have to spend hours on this site but that he chooses to deserves respect and support. You miseries can bugger off if you don’t like it.

  15. William Teach
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Unfortunately, Dr. S, you’re assuming that the Disciples Of Gore are rational. They’ve been given their talking points that GHGs cause it to get cold and to cause “extreme” snow storms. They don’t care how ridiculous it sounds: they have a cult to push, and no amount of reality will get in the way.

    In the Muslim world, they have a saying “Insha’Allah”, if God wills. They use it for everything. “Will the car start? Insha’Allah.” “Will I have a steak today? Insha’Allah.” In Climate Alarmist world, it’s more like Insha’Gore.

  16. Peter
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    I live in the Baltimore MD area, to be exact about 17 miles as the crow flys to the northwest. The temperture readings at my house compared to downtown Baltimore ave 3-5 degrees F lower all year round. When it snows at my house, it can rain in baltimore…. URBAN HEAT ISLAND AFFECT! We no where near understand how the climate works, heck we can’t even give an accurate weather forecast more then 2 days out and then that is only a 50-50 probability. As late as yesterday afternoon, Monday 1-31-2011, we were supposed to see snow after midnight changing to sleet then freezing rain. No snow, no sleet and freezing drizzle started about 3:00AM. When we can give an accurate WEATHER report and understand that, then maybe we can predict Climate Change, but what’s the point?? anyone who thinks we can alter the climate, short of a total nuclear winter, is egotistical and dangerous to the survival of mankind. Heck we should be able to stop tornado’s and hurricane’s, much small scale events than GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. Now that doesn’t mean I’m not for conservation and trying to be a good steward to the environment, but not to the detriment of mankind.

  17. Rich
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Very interesting. I take, “… which shows that the annual amount of precipitation that falls on the Earth stays remarkably constant from year to year” to be a statement about climate and, “The AREAS where it occurs just happen to move around a whole lot” as a statement about weather (as the good Doctor says himself).

    I don’t have any trouble believing that someone could use the climate statement as a reasonable prediction for the next 100 years or that using the second for more than a couple of days would be absurd.

    Did I miss something?

  18. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    don’t know what you are referring to…it’s a few days behind, but ch. 5 seems to be working fine. You do realize there are check boxes for displaying other years, right?

  19. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    hey, I like to think I know something about snarky, too! :)

  20. Ray
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    “Fred from Canuckistan says:
    February 1, 2011 at 7:56 AM
    Roy . .puleeeze try and keep up.It is “Climate Disruption” now . . . Climate Change is like 2009.”

    I wonder when it will become “Natural Climate Variability”, which is my preferred term?

  21. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    hmmm…might be a good idea.

  22. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    oops, sorry. I had forgotten all about that.

  23. Sordnay
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    “we now have many years of global satellite measurements of precipitation which shows that the annual amount of precipitation that falls on the Earth stays remarkably constant from year to year.”
    Is there a trend of “annual amount of precipitation” been registered? could you please include a link to it? I’ve been unable to find it.
    Also I’m wondering how this relates with the cloud cover.

  24. juakola
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    It is the ENSO and the AMO which make people go so crazy. I wonder when will they realize.

  25. Menth
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    In an article by sociologist Frank Furedi he wrote:

    “Throughout history people have sought to blame unusual climatic conditions on demonic forces. The association of witchcraft with weather-making accomplished one thing in particular: it mobilised people’s fears against the evil forces of heretics and non-believers. Scaremongering about witchcraft promoted the idea that its demonic powers could literally dominate nature. Father Friedrich Spee, a Jesuit critic of witch-hunting, noted sarcastically that ‘God and nature no longer do anything; witches, everything’.”

    So to paraphrase Father Spee: “Politics, Nature, History, Economics no longer do anything; climate change, everything”

  26. harrywr2
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Amen

  27. sHx
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    “TWW says:
    February 1, 2011 at 7:14 AM

    Dr. Spencer:

    When I read your blog at times I wonder if you should be somehow putting something in your posts to show readers what ‘hat’ (for lack of a better term) you are wearing. One hat is Dr. Spencer acting like an objective climate scientist with professional opinions and the other is Roy the private citizen with nonscientific opinions. You use those smiley buttons at times. Maybe you could gets some hat icons:)”

    This a fair point. Expertise in a scientific field doesn’t mean expertise in public policy-making or political and economic commentary. The former is an objective pursuit, the latter is subjective. The distinction ought to be drawn and stated clearly.

    Climate scientists are especially guilty of not observing the demarcation between science and politics and science and economics. But I wouldn’t start with the host of this blog, if I were to choose an example for worse offenders.

    That ‘honour’ goes to James Hansen, the amateur politician and economist, who thinks taxing CO2-emissions and re-distributing the proceeds is one of the ways we can prevent the Earth becoming like Venus. It is impossible to find a line between his science and politics. Yes, James Hansen of NASA. No, he is not a rocket scientist. :)

    I enjoy Roy Spencer’s off-the-cuff, tongue-in-cheek commentary. I enjoy them certainly more than the ones that have a lot of numbers and equations in it. I think he has a great sense of humour, too. And yes, he ought to make a distinction between Roy Spencer, PhD, the climate scientist, and Roy Spencer, an informed citizen with a view.

    RS:
    “1) No serious climate researcher — including the ones I disagree with — believes global warming can cause colder weather. Unless they have become delusional as a result of some sort of mental illness. One of the hallmarks of global warming theory is LESS extratropical cyclone activity — not more.”

    I guess the statement above should be filed under “an informed citizen with a view”, but it is also the nearest thing to an emphatic statement that I’ve seen from this informed citizen since the third cold Northern winter in a row struck in early December. This weather shouldn’t be happening in a globally warming world, and that’s a way to express the ‘consensus’ view! Of course, there is also the ‘of course, it’s cold, because it’s winter’ hypothesis of a climate scientist called Kevin Trenbarth.

  28. George E. Smith
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Well Dr Roy, they call it “weather”, because Mother Gaia is wondering weather to rain here, or weather to snow there; but she for damn sure is going to unload something somewhere; weather WE like it or not !

  29. Wolfe
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    What Singer was asking about is that the last updates were posted last Friday and those were for 25th and 26th. Nothing new posted last 5 days.

  30. stephen richards
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Dr Roy

    Ch5 is 6 days behind and sea surfac5 days behind when they are usually 3 and 2 respectively. 21.00GMT 1/2/2011.

  31. Wolfe
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Okay, so just after I posted the Discover site updated to 29th for Aqua 5 and 30th on sea surface. As for Al Gore, all you need to know to see that he doesn’t really believe any of the crap he spews is how big is the private jet he is zooming around the ever warming globe in!

  32. BFL
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Ignore him…I loved it!!

  33. BFL
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Naaah, us “deniers” know the difference. Great site.

  34. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Dr Spencer:

    Kindly ignore the well intentioned advice to alter your shtick or dress it under some special hat.

    Especially when putting the Algore in its place!

  35. Jabber49
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    No serious scientist would say that glo..oops, climate change, would make the world cooler. However, a warmer climate would increase moisture in the air which can exacerbate cyclonic storms which can pull down colder air from the poles which would create this super storm of historic proportions. Didn’t I read somewhere that 2010 was the hottest year on record or at least in the top five? And winter 2010 was one of the snowiest? Now Dr. Roy is saying it was cooler than normal? I think none of us really knows what is going on. We do know however that 250 ppm or so of CO2 helped create the temperate climate we all evolved in. Why would one not think that increasing it to 400 ppm and beyond does not have consequences? We also know that burning fossil fuels are acidifying the oceans, increasing mercury deposition so as to make much of sea life almost inedible, destroying the ozone layer, creating poor air quality, wrecking mountains and rivers, forcing us to send many young people to be killed and maimed in far off lands, and holding us hostage economically. Just these reasons are enough to invest in decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels. Sarcastic reasoning just slows the process down. For God’s sake, if you don’t think man-made emissions are causing climate change, at least try to look at the big picture.

  36. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    I am not a meteorologist (do they study meteors?) but I try to explain “global warming” to people like this:

    If you put a big ice cube in a glass with soda it cools the drink. As the ice melts it loses the cooling properties and the smaller the ice gets the faster it melts.

    10,000 years ago we had an ICE AGE. Glaciers were in New York and the Great Lakes. So it looks to me like the planet has been warming for a long time before modern factories and automobiles.

    If the polar ice cap was down to the Canadian border 100 years ago and melted to where it is now then I can see “Algore” having a point.

    I also don’t understand how you can have greenhouse gases AND a hole in the ozone? And why would these both be at the NORTH POLE? Wouldn’t they occur above the areas where they were produced over POPULATED areas instead of uninhabited areas like the North Pole where no one lives? Forget solar radiation warming the polar cap, a hole in the ozone would let in SPACE, which is absolute zero, and would COOL the planet.

    But, I could be wrong.

    By the way, San Diego had the COLDEST SUMMER since 1933 last year. Al Gore promised me global warming.

    If you want to do a film about WEATHER called “An Inconsistent Truth” or something, I would be all for working with you.

  37. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Fred, yesterday it was Global Warming, then Climate Change, then Climate Disruptions. Today it’s called Climate Challenges, and tomorrow it might be called Climate Armageddon or Climate Fireball :-)

  38. Lance
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Has to be CAGW, we were at -31.5C this morning at my house and by tomorrow we are going to get to +8C, oh, hang on, its called a Chinook….weather…

  39. latitude
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    and a great sense of humor too!

  40. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    From Al’s desk.

    An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM

    Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.
    As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:
    “In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”
    “A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”

  41. Kevin
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Dr. Spencer, exactly right, I for one appreciate your tone and can certainly seperate detailed technical dicussions from “straight talk”. No hats necessary.

    I appears that the former VP has no understanding of the “heat of fusion”. There is a reason ice melts slowly and remains at the same temperature for a long time. It goes both ways, solid to liquid and liquid to solid. A large amount of solid water (ice and snow) must demonstrate a much lower energy content in the atmosphere. It cannot be any other way.

    As you say the energy content above North American is a bit low right now, but the energy elsewhere is higher (Cat 5 cyclone heading for Cairns Australia right now).

    Enjoy your posts, keep up the good work.

    Cheers, Kevin

  42. Michael Hauber
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    1a) Serious scientists do say that changes in the Arctic could be causing the ‘Warm Arctic – Cold Continents’ pattern. They may be wrong or right, but your statement implies they are ‘delusional as a result of mental illness’, and to me that is a totally anti-scientific line of argument.

    1b) IPCC states that Extratropical cyclone activity should increase not decrease. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-4.html

    2) Certainly. And so what.

    3) Googling some satellite precipitation data shows what looks like annual variation to me. Perhaps you mean changes by less than a specific amount from year to year. In which case I again say ‘so what?’. Its not the change in precipitation from one year to the next, but the long term trend.

    You also claim that clouds somehow react to changes in global temperature in some way to create a negative feedback. Do you think there is some way this can occur without changing precipitation rates?

    4) Weren’t there many big snowstorms last year as well before the large fall in temps of the last 12 months started?

    Now a link between AGW and snowstorms may be only speculative. And those such as Joe Romm and Al Gore may be guilty of overstating the certainty of such a link. And avoiding mention of the fact that the likely increase in atmospheric water vapor due to AGW to date is only around 5%.

    But dismissing such a link as only promoted by a real scientist if they have become ‘delusional as the result of mental illness’?? That is what I think should very fairly be called ‘denial’.

  43. Bob Maginnis
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Roy, you have had my respect until you cheap shot:

    “1) No serious climate researcher — including the ones I disagree with — believes global warming can cause colder weather. Unless they have become delusional as a result of some sort of mental illness”

    Don’t you know that precipitation (snow in this case) requires heat to evaporate the water? Of course you do.

  44. zombie nation
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Thanks, Doc. Your work is genuinely appreciated by many. Especially down here in the southern hemisphere, the Hare Krishna chanting of the Greens zombies becomes more irrational by the day. You probably haven’t heard that coal mining caused the recent Australian floods and rising CO2 is responsible for a Cat 5 cyclone/typhoon now approaching Queensland. Greens voodoo is being parroted by the national government radio network as if it were a fact.

  45. Barbara Hensley
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Thank the good God I only have common sense and my brain hasn’t been filled with loads of scholarly clap trap. So what I bring to the table is 69 years of very good memories of weather since first grade. But particularly weather memories since two of my uncles were involved with Ma Bell’s satelites and NASA’s space program. NO ONE can convince me that all that space junk floating around in the outer atmosphere hasn’t had a direct impact on our weather. I recall hearing that in the days after airplanes were invented, people in dry areas seeded the clouds with dry ice to create rain. That’s right, disturbances in the sky could change the weather. After America’s 200th July 4th celebration when every small town across the country had fireworks we had rain across the nation. We noticed that after the 4th we nearly always have rain, so why not rationalize that outer atmospheric disturbances created the hole in the ozone? That our own NASA program is to blame for the NEW 3 seasons we now experience. Winter/Crap/Summer/Crap. No longer the long slow easing into seasons we had in my younger years. All since we have been sending shit into the jetstreams territory.

  46. Slabadang
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Hi Dr Roy!

    Concerning clouds/Dessler/Models/Spencer and feedbacks.Have you noticed Dr Noors presentation and explanation?

    http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CO2_and_climate_v3.pdf

    If clouds decreased with 4% since 1984 and clouds negative feedback is stronger because convection is a more important
    chilling factor than radiation on lower latitudes.If so doesn`t that confirm your studies and falsify the IPCC models? Someone has to be very wrong? Do you find any good points made by Noor?

    I would very much appriciate your answer on this.

  47. Ray
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Barbara Hensley says:
    “NO ONE can convince me that all that space junk floating around in the outer atmosphere hasn’t had a direct impact on our weather.”
    Since most “space junk” orbits well outside the majority of the atmosphere, it doesn’t seem likely that it will have any effect on the weather or climate.
    They are also well above the Jetstream, so they couldn’t affect that either.

  48. Tim Sherwin
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Hi Dr. Roy,
    I like your Al Gore comments…. Can’t stand that blow hards “bending” of facts.

    Just found your website/blog. Really great information. I am a “man made global Warming/Climate Change skeptic. I believe the basis of “the global warming sect” is that they really want to believe that MAN has more control of this world than we really do. It goes with a denial of GOD or a higher power. (Its also used for political gain and power grabbing too).

    In reference to Volcanos… is there any good info/reports that talks about the CO volcanos add to the atmosphere? I can find several “from global warming supporters”, but it makes sense to me that the combination of various volcanos could have much more affect on “climate change” from year to year or decade to decade than the combinations of man made stuff we are putting up. Any suggestions for some scientific indications?

    Thanks for the information you provide.

  49. Peter
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Jabbar49 says:

    “We also know that burning fossil fuels are acidifying the oceans, increasing mercury deposition so as to make much of sea life almost inedible, destroying the ozone layer, creating poor air quality, wrecking mountains and rivers, forcing us to send many young people to be killed and maimed in far off lands, and holding us hostage economically.”

    Holding us hostage? And your solutions would be? Solar? Wind? If it wasn’t for being subsidized by OUR tax dollars, they wouldn’t be viable at all. Who wants a wind farm in their back yard? Ever see one? I have, 8 of them in central PA, they so blend in with the environment…. NOT. Until a viable, cost effective option becomes available then we…. oh wait, we have one Nuclear!!! bring it on, but the greens will never let it happen… so as we all move back into caves and maybe adobe huts (if you live in the southwest) and ponder what could have been, the rest of the world will pass us by. Plus, everything that is made from petrolium products, we would go back to the dark ages. You want to see disease and pestilance? Check this site out, it explains how bad things really aren’t!

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/toc.php

  50. Mervyn Sullivan
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    About people like Al Gore, and all those men of letters who call themselves climate scientists, yet seem to lack any basic knowledge of climate science – they have been well and truly caught out… caught out and exposed as charlatans by none other than Mother Nature.

    Al Gore & Co have got it so wrong about man-made global warming, that instead of being upfront and admitting they are in fact wrong, they have decided to resort to bigger lies… lies that ordinary people now recognize as ‘crazy bullshit’. Their claims that the current freezing winter weather and blizzards are due to man-made global warming is the “mother of all climate bullshit”.

    My advice is that people should listen to what scientists like Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy have to say about weather and climate, and just ignore the alarmist claims of people like Dr James Hansen, who now seems to be totally mentally deranged!

  51. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    “its called a Chinook….weather…”

    As opposed to “called a SCHNOOK…Al Gore…” you mean?

    Got it.

    And the post is perfection in all its snarky pointedness, Dr. Roy. (We have our blog’s Gorezilla in a Sod off Swampy T shirt…to keep him warm.)

  52. Frank K.
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    I for one am extremely happy that Al Gore speaks for manic CAGW climate scientists everywhere. Keep it coming, Al.
    Your contributions are highly valued.

    I also think it’s hilarious that he got away with half of the 2007 Nobel prize money…it puts the value of the IPCC in perspective! [heh]

  53. ron from Texas
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Good grief. Warmer climate to cause more snow? Sweet Jesus, did any one here beside myself get as far in science education as the 8th grade? (Qualifier, 8th grade like it was in the 70′s, where we learned science in science class and politics was in social studies.) It only has to be a little above freezing (32 F, 0 C) for water to evaporate or, from ice and snow, sublimate to the air. Then, it only has to be freezing or a little below for snow to fall. 0 C is the freezing point. That’s actual science, real physics. It is a law of the universe and you can’t change it by voting. For those who are saddened by that, here’s a tissue to dry those tears. Now, one might say that the trade winds cause by the coreolis effect can be hampered or aided by El Nino/ La Nina but that doesn’t change the freezing point of water. And a Chevy Suburban does not alter the laws of physics, regardless of what advertising you may see. Advertising and politics are in the business of lying.

    Anyway, more gas in the atmosphere does not “create” more heat. All the gases do is slow the heat radiation by a matter of hours. Without it, we would drop to -100 F overnight. Then again, we wouldn’t have much of an atmosphere to begin with, like Mars, who’s primary component in the atmosphere and polar caps is CO2. And anyone with Google can find the response characteristics of CO2 and it is mostly transparent to heat. It doesn’t stop diddly squat. Seriously, it’s like saying that a pot of water boils because it has steam. Which is backward. It has steam because the boiling water has heat from the burner supplying it heat.

    To be fair, I should probably start out im simpler terms. Okay … 1 plus 1 equals 2. Now, I’m going to let that sink in a while.

    And I would cut Dr. Spencer some slack. Years of arguing with children who live in fantasy is arduous, at best. Show me someone who says he or she hasn’t smarted off to a recalcitrant child who refuses to accept reality and I will call them a liar. And, too, sometimes it’s uncomfortable to hear someone call it like it is. Here’s some more tissues.

  54. linzel
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    I don’t claim to be. But I would think Dr. Spencer wants to maximize the size and understanding of his audience. When either side of this debate mud slings, I and I’m certain some others, want to ignore the childhood behaviour. State and defend the science. If you are gong to resort to other tactics I’m going to ignore you. Perhaps DEEBEE may not like my suggestion but I would think Dr. Spencer would. If you want honest, logical DEBATE and not group-think you need to nurture it. In summary, DEEBEE you actually make my point by telling me to leave if I don’t like it. 1. It reduces the debate and education. 2. It stimulates the formation of group-think. Neither are what we need.
    In the end Spencer do what you want, it is your blog. Just thought I’d let you know an effect it COULD have. Many of your readers may want to drink your water unquestioning searching for validation of their preconceptions – some do not.
    All the best – enjoy the snow.

  55. linzel
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    I know these numbers are not 100% accurate BUT if I remember properly – volcanic addition of CO2 to atmosphere is about 300 million tonnes. human production about 30 BILLION tonnes. Volcanic addition about 0.1 % that of anthropogenic the largest causes being land use, fossil fuel burning and concrete production.

    Cheers

  56. Frank K.
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    linzel says:
    February 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

    Linzel – if you want a superb example of “group think” you can point your browser to the realclimate website. But don’t worry, they don’t participate in snark, smear, or put-downs. After all, they are political professional climate “scientists”…

  57. linzel
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    The problem “texan man” is people with grade 8 science actually think they understand climate science and their opinion actually counts to the debate. Many didn’t understand it correctly in grade 8 and most never studied past that. Dozens of times I read comments from people that are factually incorrect let alone theoretically incorrect. How many times I have read someone say ‘its warm here’ or ‘its cold here’ or ‘its snowwing – AGW is BS!’ It just don’t work on that simplistic a level.

  58. klem
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Sorry but climate disruption didn’t take. The public has heard it and have rejected it, it’s still ‘climate change’. Even the enviromarxists are still using it.

  59. klem
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    If there is a trend I’m sure it’s well known, but if the IPCC has access to it I’ll bet it looks alot like a hockey stick by now.

  60. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Al Gore responded to Bill with -
    http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html

    So that is what this could be in reference to with Al?

  61. olsthro
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    The winter olympics of 2010 in Vancouver, which had minimal amounts of snowfall, was due to, as many experts claimed, including the premier of British Columbia,”Climate Change” i.e. Global Warming!
    I hope the folks and Gore keeps making rediculous comments! It’s a sign of desperation and soon the house of cards is going to collapse! Fun to watch!

  62. Thomas
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    OMG, poor Roy will have to trudge ahead in this life without the respect of Bob McGinnis.

  63. fumes
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    exactly!

  64. Fred Flintstone
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Have we ever had a period of Global Not-Change?

  65. Adela
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    Terrorists are being brought to justice in criminal courts these days…
    Al Gore and the global warming alarmists such as left wing politicians, pseudo scientists, journalists, the Hollywood idiots, have been inflicting psychological terrorism upon a whole generation of children all over the world for the last 15 years.
    These charlatans should be brought to justice as the perpetrators of the biggest scam in the history of this planet.
    The social,financial and psychological damages that they caused are beyond comprehension.
    No criminal organization in history has ever come even close to having such a dezastruous impact on so many people, for such a long time, and make so much money in the process.
    They should not be permitted to get away with it.
    Hundred of billions have been wasted on a fraud, social and economical policies have been altered based on a fraud….the moral authors of this fraud should be in jail for the rest of their lives and their fortune seized

  66. 46 mos, 2 wks ago

    You made me laugh–thank you! I am from Alaska and 2 years ago we had the coldest summer since they began taking readings in Alaska–no one reported it becasue they didn’t want to scare away tourists. When I point out these anomolies to the GW fanatics–they say that you have to take the “whole” earth temperature and average it out.

    With the last few winters and record colds, I figure that the southern hemispere has cooked and no one is telling us a quarter of the population has evaporated. That is the only way to average the numbers, and still get global warming.

    What I don’t get is that NOAA is still reporting that 2010 was the hottest year on record???? Then I read Dr Roy (who I believe) and he says we’re still in a cooling phase–How do you sort it out?

  67. Rob
    46 mos, 2 wks ago

    I have to agree with linzel.
    Dr. Spencer, there are enough opinionated bloggers out there that can and do throw strawman arguments and throw ad hominems and mud at the IPCC scientists, and at Al Gore whenever there is a snowstorm coming in.
    You however stand our, because your main strength is in being a truely scientific ‘skeptic’, questioning and bringing forward scientific arguments that differ from ‘consensus’ thinking. You are a real climate scientist with extensive climatological experience, and that is what is what sets you apart from the rest of the bloggers.
    So when you throw mud at Al Gore and at unspecified “True Believers” who “read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like…”, could you not have at least have been specific, and come up with a reference on who said what and where and how does that contradict your finding that the winter weather in the US is just weather ?
    Please remain a scientist Dr.Spencer. The blogosphere is already filled to the rim with yellers and blamers and mud throwers.

  68. Ross Brisbane
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Does anyone understand this simple logic.

    It takes ENERGY inputs into the climate to create evaporation.

    Snow falling is from condensation of the upper atmosphere hitting a cold front. The entire globe gets very cold in the upper atmosphere when there is rising super heated moisture more rapid rates.

    The conversion of the vapor into the upper atmosphere and the extent of it is then evidence of a warm/warmer planet.

    In other words it took energy in the climate system to get the stuff up there in the first place.

    What Our Dr Roy is on about is variability it is his pet theory on cloud coverage hide a great logical fallacy:

    More energy into the global system results in the climate speeding up. The transition of the extra water vapor to ground is in the form precipitation in ice, snow, rain and torrential rain, Cyclone/hurricane formation etc.

    In radiative laws of physics we calculate the extra energy held in the climate system. These equations give us the net gains of this energy.

    Then of course variability – this mysterious force of mother nature causing weather events that are interpreted as cold or hot.

    Our Dr Roy then relies heavily on the after effect. His entire assertions stands or falls on his “roller blind” effect of clouds. Does a region cool or gain heat still? Is the net effect nudging toward cooler or warmer global climate. That is his theory – and sadly he cannot prove a thing – he can make assertions on this.

    He admits to and at least recognizes the radiative forcing of CO2. Something skeptics around never dare to countenance. Instead they come here boldly patting Dr Roy on the back whilst scampering into the blogsphere denying credible science in the laws of physics and radiative forcing of greenhouse gases.

    This is a one man’s theory – the evidence is pointing the other way.

    He should do a study of Queensland Australia and the remarkable effect of cloud cover we have experienced over this Summer period. He will find that temperature flattens out to a much higher minimum temperature. He will find that humidity soars. He will find massive downpours of torrential rain. He will find once the cloud cover lifts temperatures soar. He will find the heat during the day is held in at night. He will find that whilst temperatures under cloud cover do not go extreme the drop in temperature is moderated to higher then normal at night. This is water vapor at work as a feedback of a WARMING globe.

    But what caused all water vapor to form a thick clouds and cause dimming of Queensland’s summer:

    It takes ENERGY in the climate system:

    The Coral Sea north eastern Australia are the warmest on record. This predisposes the evaporation to soar. The condensation of all this moisture is what is causing the flooding in Queensland. this is a direct link to a warming of that region of ocean. What is the trigger – the colder La Nina is buffeting this region and we have condensation – torrential rains. This is feeding the massive flooding that saw Queensland a wash with water levels and floods unprecedented across 75% of the State. It is what also fed the CAT 5 Cyclone recently. And we all know that the La Nina is also AN ENERGY transference going on don’t we.

    We do not have a moderating closed system. We have system not controlled by God himself but controlled by forces created (by a higher power if you believe in this) eons ago. We are messing up that system and we are culpable in the act. I am astounded by some of the belligerent fatalism that we can do nothing that exists in some minds.

    The short term variability is nothing when you consider three factors not considered:

    1. Ever increasing CO2 as a greenhouse effect.
    2. Extreme evaporation rates and water vapor spirals from oceans
    3. the Greenhouse effect is amplified to positive feedback not negative or neutral as implied by Dr Roy.

    Temperatures soared to 45 degrees Celsius in some parts of Australia.

    However if the net gain of global increases over the next 10 years show a distinct 1 degree Celsius gain then Lindzen and Dr Roy Spencer’s theory will be wrong. He along with Lindzen will owe everyone an apology and tell us all they got it wrong.

  69. Gestalt
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    I find the debate relating to global warming falling short in relation to the larger context of the global system. From a historical context, the American Indians lived 10k+ of years within a sustainable life style yet and yet it has only taken a mere 100+ years of industriazation to bring man kind to this debate. I have found the discussion very insightful into how the various variables may impact the the global enviornmental system. To question the assumptions used in calculating the various climate models is a reasonable exercise. However, to straplaid that discussion outward, marginalizing governmental initiives and policies based merely on the uncertainty; without considering the risk of such inaction to future generations is the greatest of moral hazards! Please, leave the politics to those whom it belongs.

  70. Dan
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Tell you what .. there are a lot of fools out here in Australia called climate change deniers wiping the egg off their faces today . The biggest floods in history , the biggest cyclone in history as PREDICTED and we note the US has had the largest snowstorms . Anyone spotted the link yet ? No ? Its called Water Vapour . Ever made a cup of coffee? Do you really a science degree to know that water vapour increases with temperature ? Do you really need a degree to know that you need water vapour to make snow ? Whats causing more water vapour? GLOBAL WARMING.. Whats causing the Global warming ? fairies ? no ..or the Sun ? . The Sun has remained constant over 20 years to within a few percent so rule that one out . The answer is MORE C02 plus MORE Methane leading to higher temperatures resulting in MORE water vapour off the sea. Simple when you think about it … and it works as a model. Expect the weather to get more extreme .
    I believe the FLAT EARTH society is still accepting climate change deniers .

  71. William of Oz
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    I agree with Adela. Countless individuals and the masses have been damaged by Gore and his allied climate liars.
    We are dealing with a world deception on the scale of WW2. A Climategate Court akin to Nuremburg is something all of us Climate Deniers should actively and loudly call for.
    Let the judges be scientists. Let the courts jail the convicted climate criminals.

  72. William of Oz
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Hey Dan – where abouts are you from – country and state?

  73. William of Oz
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    also Dan how old are you and what part of “out here in Australia” do you live in ?

  74. Kevin
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Quoting Dan,

    “Do you really need a degree to know that you need water vapour to make snow ?”

    Dan, I have several degrees, and I know that in addition to water vapour you also need to remove copious amounts of ENERGY from water vapour to make it into snow. The “AGW” hypothesis says that there is MORE ENERGY in the atmosphere, so how does snow happen when there is only one of two NECESSARY CONDITIONS PRESENT? How come I can’t make ice cubes in my oven by evaporating water?

    It’s pretty easy to “PREDICT” a cyclone when you see it coming via satellite images.

    It seems that all of these recent WEATHER events are within the historic limits.

    All of our thoughts and wishes are with those suffering through these weather events.

    Maybe we should spend our efforts being prepared for the storms that we KNOW MIGHT happen from the historic records…………

    Cheers, Kevin

  75. Kevin
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Quoting Ross Brisbane,

    “In radiative laws of physics we calculate the extra energy held in the climate system. These equations give us the net gains of this energy.”

    Sorry but “extra energy held in the climate system” makes no sense. Energy cannot be “held”, it can be converted (by breaking the chemical bond between molecules when burning a fuel, or converting the energy of falling water to electricity”). Or its flow through a complex system may be slowed, or hastened. But it MOST DECIDEDLY CANNOT BE “HELD”, or “TRAPPED”.

    Again, I am sorry but “net gains of this energy” is frankly “bulls–t”. As an engineer I can assure you I have never designed a system that demonstrates any form of “energy gain”. This is not possible. I get a certain amount of energy to use and I have not yet figured out how to apply any “gain” to that energy to get any more………………

    Yes, I can apply “gain” to power, voltage, current, torque, and many other signals, but it is impossible to apply gain to energy.

    There is NO EXTRA ENERGY in the atmosphere of the Earth due to “greenhouse gases”. We might disagree about how much the “greenhouse effect” slows (or increases) the flow of energy thru the atmosphere, but there is MOST DECIDEDLY NOT ANY “EXTRA ENERGY” present.

    If I could figure out how to apply a GAIN to the energy in any system I would be richer than a Mister Buffett.

    Cheers, Kevin

  76. Turboblocke
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Sorry but “extra energy held in the climate system” makes no sense. Energy cannot be “held”, it can be converted…
    Actually Kevin the extra energy is stored in the molecules that are now at a higher temperature.

    Note to Dr. Spencer: I thought that this site was intended to be based on science. However, this post seems just to be designed to appeal to denier trolls who hate Al Gore.

    I also note you play the Global warming/climate change card: …global warming (I’m sorry — climate change)…
    I would expect you to know what the CC in IPCC has meant since 1988.

  77. RAM
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Seems like I recall seeing a graphic generated by a GCM that showed that some areas of the world would get cooler, on the average, even as the world as a whole got warmer, on the average. Also I heard on the radio this morning another claim that there has been no global warming since 1998, which, of course, was a very anomalous el nino year. Are you still using the old algorithm for calculating monthly temperatures for 1998, or have you reprocessed the raw data back that far using the new algorithm?

  78. Kevin
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Ah yes, the old “stored energy” trick. Most of the known ways to “store” energy consist of converting it to another form (chemical i.e. batteries, or potential i.e. pumped water reservoirs). Unfortunately for the AGW hypothesis one of the WORST possible ways to attempt to “store” energy is by heating up gas molecules. Gas is the material state with the LOWEST thermal capacity.

    I stand by my contention that it is not possible to “store” energy, it is only possible to slow down the rate at which it moves to a less energetic location (i.e. the cold vacuum of space).

    I do not hate the former VP (I do not believe anything he says), why do you hate people that disagree with the AGW hypothesis?

    Cheers, Kevin.

  79. Faleh almutairi
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    you stated this(Evidence for point #2 is that we now have many years of global satellite measurements of precipitation which shows that the annual amount of precipitation that falls on the Earth stays remarkably constant from year to year. The AREAS where it occurs just happen to move around a whole lot. Again, we used to call that “weather”.)

    I am muslims and what you stated in your blog is matching100%what prophet mohammad said before 1400 years..prophet mohamad stated that (all the years rain is the same. it just God order it where to fall)

    thank alot for intresting blog

  80. Eddie
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Dr. Spencer, sorry I’m late to reading this post, but related to Al Gore and winter weather (snowstorms), there is an atmospheric scientist (a real scientists not a politician) named Judah Cohen who wrote an Op-Ed piece a few months ago titled “Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming”. He used examples of physics such as Siberian snow cover triggering standing waves to then cause further issues with the jet stream which the extratropical cyclones of course are drive by. One of his excerpts is:

    “The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.”

    So its one thing to for an uneducated (in terms of atmospheric scientist) like Al Gore to cackle away, but yet another when a Ph.D atmospheric scientist writes an Op-Ed in the NYT which purports to tie global warming to the weather pattern this winter across North America.

  81. Raving Lunatic
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    Ah, but there are no truly unbiased scientists. That is where we all err, in believing in the infallibility of science (human knowledge), which is itself reliant on the fallibility of human observation. Human observation is not inerrant. It is both inherently limited (rather than completely comprehensive), and is also interpretated through the spectacles of a person’s a-priori beliefs (let’s call it a world view). Your belief of science is too strong if you expect for any scientist, past or present, to abandon their humanity in favor of the idealogical picture we all have of cold, objective scientists doing experiments and going wherever the data leads them. Bottom line, all scientists are looking for significance in their results. Who wants to write an article for Science magazine that says, “I made no significant findings?” Yet if scientists were brutally honest and free of bias, this would be the meat of most scientific articles. No one would have paid attention to Gore had he peddled the gospel of “there is no significant effect on the weather from greenhouse gases”. He wouldn’t have won a Nobel prize for that. No, he followed the example of the late Yasser Arafat, who won the Nobel peace prize by essentially pledging to stop the terrorism he had started and spent his entire life pursuing; it was a politically correct ploy intended to elicit an effect. And just like all well-intentioned scientists, Gore presented the proof texts that supported his preconceived theory. But the funny thing is, not even scientists can agree on science’s definition. A college student at Wayne State University in Detroit told me that his biology teacher stated that evolution is a scientific fact “because it hasn’t been disproven”. So I figure that since nobody’s ever disproven that there isn’t a lifetime supply of jello behind the star Betelgeuse, it’s a scientific fact, and I’m raising money for an expedition to go retrieve it. Feel free to donate to the cause. In the meantime, the following article should help to defuse the unrealistic absolute confidence that we humans place in human observation (science): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

    Learn to take human observations with a grain of salt, understanding that the conclusions will eventually change as the rivers of what people WANT to believe shift direction.

    I’m all for avoiding ad hominem statements and using references. But there comes a time where a target gets too big to miss, and where giving references is a fruitless exercise in stating the obvious. If you can’t independently verify the Dr.’s statements and you think he’s throwing around strawmen, then you are too unread, or else unwilling to evaluate the evidence given. Bottom line, you have a weather expert telling us that Gore’s global warming theory is full of it, and he gives some technical reasons why this is the case. So what part of this evidence do you think is incorrectly reported, or misinterpreted? What additional facts are you aware of that invalidate the reasons given? How is the Dr. unqualified to speak on this subject? If you have nothing to add, then hold your tongue and let the rest of us at least have a good laugh at a fool that was frighteningly enough only one heartbeat away from being president of the United States.

  82. Raving Lunatic
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    You state,

    “If you put a big ice cube in a glass with soda it cools the drink. As the ice melts it loses the cooling properties and the smaller the ice gets the faster it melts.”

    You’re funny. No, the ice that remains has the same cooling properties of the original ice. No, the ice doesn’t melt faster as it gets smaller. In fact, as the drink cools down, the temperature differential between the ice and the drink decreases, and the ice melts more slowly. So your analogy isn’t even correct.

    “10,000 years ago we had an ICE AGE.”

    How do you know we have an ice age, and how do you know how long ago it was?

    “So it looks to me like the planet has been warming for a long time before modern factories and automobiles.”

    That depends on your belief system. Do you believe the glaciers have been melting at a steady rate since your supposed “ice age”, or do you believe in catastrophism, such that an ice age and/or the recovery from an ice age took place in a short period of time, and was an abnormal event compared to the everyday weather patterns we currently experience? Do you believe in a global flood catastrophe as described in the Bible, or perhaps a meteor impact catastrophe as surmised by dinosaur extinction theorists, or perhaps a large volcano spewing ash into the air catastrophe? Such beliefs will affect the theories you produce. For example, just sample the geologic debates that were underway in the 1830′s between those who believed in a uniformitarian-formed earth vs. a catastrophically-formed earth.

    “If the polar ice cap was down to the Canadian border 100 years ago and melted to where it is now then I can see “Algore” having a point.”

    Yes, if you leave critical thinking at the door and use enough imagination about what might have happened, it can make sense. Bottom line, none of us were there, and we can only deduce what happened from the clues that remain, like an episode of CSI. And as you know from such investigative analyses, the truth can at times be easy to decipher, and at other times difficult to impossible to decipher. Without an eyewitness, that is.

  83. Raving Lunatic
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    The comment section of this site is not working correctly. Upon clicking a reply link, the reply form shows up without the name/mail fields showing. So then when “Submit Comment” is pressed, the next page says taht the name/mail was missing. Hitting the browser back button, suddenly the name/mail fields are avaiable. However, unbeknownst to the unsuspecting commenter, their reply is no longer associated to the original comment that they were replying to. Hence my last post shows up as a reply to the original article, when it was intended as a reply to one of the comments.

  84. Raving Lunatic
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    You state,

    “If you put a big ice cube in a glass with soda it cools the drink. As the ice melts it loses the cooling properties and the smaller the ice gets the faster it melts.”

    You’re funny. No, the ice that remains has the same cooling properties of the original ice. No, the ice doesn’t melt faster as it gets smaller. In fact, as the drink cools down, the temperature differential between the ice and the drink decreases, and the ice melts more slowly. So your analogy isn’t even correct.

    “10,000 years ago we had an ICE AGE.”

    How do you know we have an ice age, and how do you know how long ago it was?

    “So it looks to me like the planet has been warming for a long time before modern factories and automobiles.”

    That depends on your belief system. Do you believe the glaciers have been melting at a steady rate since your supposed “ice age”, or do you believe in catastrophism, such that an ice age and/or the recovery from an ice age took place in a short period of time, and was an abnormal event compared to the everyday weather patterns we currently experience? Do you believe in a global flood catastrophe as described in the Bible, or perhaps a meteor impact catastrophe as surmised by dinosaur extinction theorists, or perhaps a large volcano spewing ash into the air catastrophe? Such beliefs will affect the theories you produce. For example, just sample the geologic debates that were underway in the 1830’s between those who believed in a uniformitarian-formed earth vs. a catastrophically-formed earth.

    “If the polar ice cap was down to the Canadian border 100 years ago and melted to where it is now then I can see “Algore” having a point.”

    Yes, if you leave critical thinking at the door and use enough imagination about what might have happened, it can make sense. Bottom line, none of us were there, and we can only deduce what happened from the clues that remain, like an episode of CSI. And as you know from such investigative analyses, the truth can at times be easy to decipher, and at other times difficult to impossible to decipher. Without an eyewitness, that is.

  85. Raving Lunatic
    46 mos, 1 wk ago

    OK, I give up. This site needs technical work so that replies show up with their original comments…

  86. William of Oz
    46 mos ago

    Hey Dan. You haven’t replied to me yet:

    William of Oz says:
    February 5, 2011 at 12:47 AM
    Hey Dan – where abouts are you from – country and state?

    Reply
    William of Oz says:
    February 5, 2011 at 1:03 AM
    also Dan how old are you and what part of “out here in Australia” do you live in ?

    I look forward to your reply.

  87. William of Oz
    46 mos ago

    Hi raving lunatic I agree. So far Dan has eluded me.

    Poetic – Justice – ? :P