Drought Relief: Shasta Lake Rises 10 ft. in One Day

December 12th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The latest in a series of Pacific storms hit California yesterday with high winds and over 6 inches of rain at Shasta Dam. A number of mountain stations that feed the reservoirs in N. California, which are at very low levels from the continuing drought, have registered over 10 inches of rain in the last week.

With yesterday’s heavy rains, Lake Shasta rose a spectacular 10.6 feet in one day, which added over 130,000 acre feet of water volume to California’s largest reservoir. That’s enough water to fill 65,000 Olympic size swimming pools.

The following graph shows that there is still a long way to go to reach even normal water levels on Lake Shasta:

Nevertheless, it also shows how the reservoir can recover in only one year, as it did from the 1976-77 dry period to the 1977-78 wet period, the result of rains from weak El Nino conditions.

The current El Nino conditions in the Pacific are contributing to the current wet and stormy period, which will need to continue before we can even begin to talk about the drought being over.

57 Responses to “Drought Relief: Shasta Lake Rises 10 ft. in One Day”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. geran says:

    The building El Nino is definitely weak, but it is the strongest one since 2010. At least it is not La Nina conditions!

  2. H.B. Schmidt says:

    In other words, Lake Shasta’s water levels follow cyclical periodicity and not as the result of atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Just so we’re all clear on that … since CAGW alarmists want to tie everything to CO2, and not natural variance, I wanted to spell it out in no uncertain terms for them.

  3. ren says:

    It will be a lot of rain in California due to the jet stream.
    Snow in the mountains.

  4. Curious George says:

    An excellent reminder, thank you. However, I don’t like the conversion into Olympic size swimming pools. Now every California billionaire will build one.

  5. Backslider says:

    OT – this is the latest paper being used by alarmists re. Antarctic glacier melt: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6214/1227

    Published Dec 5.

    Example here: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/less-ice-or-more-what-you-need-know-about-antarcticas-n265646

  6. John F. Hultquist says:

    I check this site:

    Over the last couple of weeks there is increasing ice, still mostly <1/10 (blue).
    If I check temperatures, say near the western end of Lake Erie – Trenton, MI or Toledo, OH, the air temperature is above freezing, mostly even at the coldest. Over at Green Bay it has been colder and that shows with 8/10 (orange) and 9/10 (red).
    The lake water has been cooler than the long term average because of the cold and ice from last winter. Perhaps that is contributing to the current ice conditions.
    If there is an analysis of lake conditions that I haven't found, can someone post a link.
    [Will post this note on WUWT, also.]

    • ren says:

      Probably before Christmas in the stratosphere create another wave as a result of next decline in solar activity. Arctic air then come down again south US. Lakes will freeze quickly. Currently, the ice in the Arctic is approaching very to normal until 2000.

  7. James says:

    Over the next three days, it went up another 10 feet.


  8. Climate Researcher says:

    Well Roy all these posts about extreme weather conditions may be interesting, but they do nothing to prove whether of not any have anything to do with carbon dioxide. Your continued false assumption that the Earth’s surface temperature is raised somewhat by so-called greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide is just keeping a foot in each camp – sitting on the fence. You need a better understanding of thermodynamics, Roy, and I can help you gain such.

    There won’t be any warming until the end of the current 30 year downturn in the 60 year cycle which is superimposed on a long-term cycle of about 1000 years. The latter should reach a maximum within 50 years and then start cooling for nearly 500 years.

    Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with Earth’s climate. The surface is indeed warmer than the mean radiating temperature, but the higher temperatures are maintained by the effect of gravity which establishes the so-called “lapse rate” as an equilibrium state. This then means that there can be convective heat transfer downwards when solar radiation is absorbed in the upper troposphere or in the clouds. This apparent downward heat transfer is really just establishing a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium with a higher mean temperature due to the new energy arriving when the Sun shines. The reverse happens at night.

    There is no need for James Hansen’s explanation in which he realises that extra energy is needed to explain the warm surface temperature, but quite incorrectly assumes it is supplied by radiation from the colder atmosphere, including some from carbon dioxide molecules. All that is of course utter nonsense, but sadly it is all that politicians need for their weak understanding of physics to lead them to be so gullible as to believe.

    • ren says:

      Warmer at night due to the high heat capacity of water vapor. But not with radiation. In the desert at night it gets cold quickly.
      “The Standard Atmosphere document indicates the only effect of water vapor upon the troposphere lapse rate is to reduce it from 9.8C/km to 6.5C/km on average, solely due to the high heat capacity Cp (1.865 Joules per gram per degree Kelvin) of water vapor compared to all of the other atmospheric gases.”

      • ren says:

        But if there are clouds, the surface does not heat and air circulation determines the air temperature at the surface.

      • Climate Researcher  says:

        That is a lot of garbage ren as we often find on the Hockey Schtich blog where my corrections to their incorrect physics just get deleted.

        Firstly, Cp is the specific heat capacity or “specific heat” for short. It is not the heat capacity which is not an intrinsic property. See this article.

        Secondly, the specific heat of water vapour can only affect the temperature gradient to the extent of the percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere – rarely more than 4%. The difference between the wet and dry rates is over 30% so you have a lot more explaining to do. I have explained it and its consequences in my study that showed water vapor cools by a few degrees, rather than warming by nearly 30 degrees as the IPCC would like you to be gullible enough to believe. Perhaps if your understanding of physics is such that you thought Cp fully explained the wet rate you may be that gullible.

        • Note to all:

          “Climate Researcher,” “Physicist,” “Captain Curt,” “Alex Hamilton,” and who knows what other false identities are all pseudonyms of the notorious internet troll Doug Cotton.

          Cotton is now on a mission to slur my site and others, which he threatened to do multiple times in comments at my site, since I refuse to publish any more of his self-serving promotional commentary aimed to sell his book and theories, thus Cotton was permanently banned from my site (as most others).

          The comment above from pseudonym “climate researcher” Doug Cotton is only one example of Cotton’s mission to hide his identity and slur anyone who does not agree with him. Thus, I will continue to point out to others his pseudonyms and slurs, on my site as well as others as I encounter them.

          • Climate Researcher  says:

            Water vapor (according to a study of temperature records) appears to have a cooling effect of a few degrees, maybe 10 degrees. Carbon dioxide molecules are outnumbered by water vapor molecules by at least 50:1 and, furthermore, water vapor radiates in a far wider range of frequencies than does carbon dioxide. Thus the effect of carbon dioxide is totally dominated by that of water vapor, probably by hundreds to 1. This puts the effect of carbon dioxide at less than 0.1 degree, probably on the cooling side anyway.

          • Climate Researcher  says:

            Regarding the “Hockey Schtick” post where valid criticism of their articles is simply deleted rather than any of them trying to discuss or refute such. That’s their version of “science” it seems – just smear anyone who points out errors, such as I will now below …

            I quote from a recent article on the HS: “The 2nd law of thermodynamics states disorder (called entropy) of any system (such as Earth’s atmosphere) must always increase, and for any heat transfer to occur from cold gases or bodies to warmer gases or bodies would result in an impossible decrease of entropy forbidden by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

            That is simply not correct. The Second Law is not stated in terms that refer to heat transfer not being possible from cold to hot. That is merely a corollary of the Second Law which only applies when gravitational potential energy is held constant. This is easily understood because that PE plays a part in determining entropy. The Second Law talks only about entropy increasing to a maximum which is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. When that state is reached there are no unbalanced energy potentials. But if you assume an isothermal state is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a vertical plane in a gravitational field, then you are describing a state with more mean PE per molecule at the top than at the bottom, but yet the same kinetic energy determining temperature. That state does have unbalanced energy potentials. Hence it is not what the Second Law says will eventuate.

            I will expose such invalid physics wherever it appears. Rather than take offence, people writing on the HS should look into what I have explained about the possibility of downward convective heat transfer. Otherwise, they have no valid explanation as to how the required thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus and raises its temperature, but only where the Sun shines. That is clearly convective and conductive heat transfer from the atmosphere to the hotter surface. And it happens on Earth too.

            You at the HS, and Roger at TB allow Wilde to influence you too much with his wild assertions about upward and downward moving pockets of air. He can’t even decide if they fall at night or by day or at any old time. It’s false physics not supported by any law.

          • Fonzarelli says:

            Like him or not, I think we’re all at a loss if cotton can’t express his view…

          • jimc says:

            Fonz, I really hate to say this, but Doug is … well … a hypocrite. I understand from those who know him that when his head is cold, he does not invert himself so the gravito-thermal gradient will warm it. Instead, he puts on a hat (which is cooler than his body temperature) to keep his head warm. Yes, it’s true. He preaches one thing and practices another.

          • (Captain) Curt says:


            I (Captain Curt) most certainly am not Doug Cotton. I believe that he is one of the few people more confused about these issues than you are, and I have done battle with him many times on various blogs.

            Neither of you can perform proper energy balance calculations, keeping your systems and subsystems consistent through the analysis, and so you both end up with wild 1st Law errors.

            Neither of you understands the very basic concept of radiative exchange as the basis for radiation heat transfer, as explained in any introductory physics or engineering thermodynamics textbook. Neither of you understands how there can be radiative energy transfer from a colder to a warmer body (part of said “exchange”), but since there is always more energy transfer from the warmer to the colder body, there is no 2nd Law violation.

            Neither of you understands the concepts of stable and unstable lapse rates, one of the most basic concepts in meteorology, and how unstable environmental lapse rates, say from radiative absorption from a warm surface, lead to convection leading to lapse rates close to adiabatic, but stable rates do not.

            By continuing to post with your very fundamental confusions, errors that would flunk you out of any introductory (non-climate-related) class, you just give ammunition to alarmists who say that skeptics don’t understand basic science.

        • ren says:

          I think the water vapor cools the surface, but keeps you warm air long.
          Of course it is very unevenly distributed over the surface.

  9. ren says:

    As every winter cooling process, affecting vast areas of Siberia, which becomes possible due to the low limited sunlight and very dry layers occurring just above the surface of the earth, was a success. At the end of the intensive cooling, near the snowy surface, formed cold, very heavy air layer having a thickness of 1000-1500 m, with a consequence to the formation of thermal Russian-Siberian anticyclone.

  10. nels says:

    Water vapor has over 400 absorption ‘lines’ in the spectrum of terrestrial radiation and there are about 15,000 ppmv water vapor molecules in the atmosphere.
    CO2 has only one absorption ‘line’ in the spectrum of terrestrial radiation and has increased in the atmosphere by about 100 ppmv. Therefore, the increase in CO2 has increased absorption ‘opportunities’ by an essentially undetectable amount of only about 1 part in 60,000.

    • ren says:

      To calculate the temperature for spaceflight radiation completely ignored.
      “Early in the “space race” of the 1950’s, US Air Force Research Laboratory meteorologist and “rocket design climatologist” Norman Sissenwine “recognized the urgent need for complete data on the properties of the atmosphere” and thus became “a catalyst between the aerospace and meteorological community” to develop the US Standard Atmosphere physical model of Earth’s atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature profile by altitude from the surface all the way up to the edge of space at ~100,000+ meters altitude.

      This massive effort was critical to the entire space program and aeronautics, and hundreds of rocket scientists, physicists, meteorologists, aeronautical engineers, and atmospheric scientists contributed to this project necessary to physically model and then verify with millions of observations from weather balloons, research flights, and rocket launches, that their physical 1-D vertical model of the atmosphere was correct. The 1958 first edition of the US Standard Atmosphere was followed by revisions, mostly of the far upper atmosphere at the edge of space, as more data became available from the space program, with revisions published in 1962, 1966, and the final 1976 version still widely used as the gold standard today.”

      • Climate Researcher  says:

        Firstly, go back to this comment.

        It’s one thing to “model” the thermal profile of the troposphere, but it’s another thing altogether to explain the necessary energy flows that cause the temperatures to act as they do, warming by day and cooling by night, even where no solar radiation reaches in gaseous planets and Uranus, for example.

        Now go to this comment.

  11. Climate Researcher  says:


    More errors in the Hockey Schtick article:

    I quote: ” since water vapor has a high heat capacity more than double that of N2, O2, and CO2 (which are all lower and close to the same). This is the primary means (other than clouds) by which water vapor cools the Earth surface and atmosphere, since by the lapse rate equation dT/dh = -g/Cp”

    The difference between the “dry” and “wet” rates is over 30%. The effect of the higher specific heat (not “heat capacity”) Cp of water vapor (less than double that of the other 98% of air molecules) is thus no more than 2% on the weighted mean specific heat of the atmosphere.

    It seems the HS writer can’t appreciate that 30% is somewhat different from 2%. And, by the way, clouds don’t make up the other 28% because the wet rate is evident with or without clouds. The primary reason for the reduction of 30% is explained in the book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All.”

  12. Climate Researcher  says:

    The current series of articles in the Hockey Schtick are overwhelmingly misguided by the writings of Maxwell in which he presented quite a different explanation to that of the brilliant 19th century physicist Loschmidt.

    The huge difference is that Maxwell incorrectly confused cause and effect, thinking that high pressure caused high temperatures. That is not the case. The force of gravity acting on molecules in flight establishes a state of thermodynamic equilibrium which, in the absence of radiating molecules, has a temperature gradient equal to the “dry” lapse rate. Then that state of thermodynamic equilibrium acquires a reduced gradient due to the temperature levelling effect of inter-molecular radiation and other radiation associated with those molecules. The force of gravity also sets up a density gradient in accord with the process of increasing entropy described in the Second Law. Pressure is just a corollary, being proportional to the product of temperature and density. Temperature is an independent variable requiring actual energy input. It doesn’t just rise because pressure rises.

    But this still does not explain why the lower gradient leads to lower surface temperatures, because it does not explain the necessary energy flows. One might argue that the lower gradient means the surface cools more slowly and so the daily minimum temperature is higher, even though the maximum is the same. This gives a warmer mean surface temperature. But that’s not supported by empirical evidence.

    The big question is whether it is the surface temperature controlling the atmospheric temperature or the atmospheric temperature controlling the surface temperature. The answer is complex for earth, and things vary at different times of the day and night, and in different circumstances such as cloud cover or clear days. The energy flows however must be understood, and they must include heat transfers into the surface because we know it warms by day and we only have to look at Venus data to realise the Sun’s direct radiation does not do all the warming.

  13. Doug Cotton  says:

    The world is still warming at a long-term rate of about half a degree per century, but it will reach a maximum within 50 years, then cool for nearly 500 years with superimposed 60 year natural cycles.

    Until you take comfort in the valid physics which explains all temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of planets and satellite moons throughout the Solar System and no doubt beyond, you will continue to argue about what is a fictional hypothesis and, in the process, you will be unduly concerned when the next 30 years of warming occurs between 2028 and 2058.

    So have a Happy and unconcerned Christmas.

  14. On the other side of their equation, the less the available gives, the higher the cost.

  15. ren says:

    Dr Roy Spencer travel northeast America may be on Christmas dangerous.

  16. Doug Cotton says:

    Who needs drought relief? Surely it’s a lot cooler without all that greenhouse gas water vapor around. /sarc

    As climatologists will tell you, the Earth’s atmosphere is a good insulator. Yep! It does indeed insulate us a little from the hot sunlight. That greenhouse gas water vapour forms clouds which shade us and send 20% of the solar radiation reflected back to space. It also absorbs almost all of about 20% of the solar radiation that gets absorbed on the way in. Water vapour also expedites the transfer of thermal energy up through the troposphere and off to space. It’s quite good at speeding up the rate of cooling of Earth’s surface, just as it reduces the insulating effect when moist air enters the gap between double glazed window panes. Do you ever wonder why they use dry air instead to improve the insulation? Next time you wander through a cool rain forest be a little thankful for the most prolific greenhouse gas water vapour because no one really enjoys living in a dry desert, now do they?

  17. Doug Cotton says:

    Firstly, as we read on some other climate blogs also, it is very apparent that either (a) a planet’s temperature is primarily determined by incident solar radiation, or (b) it isn’t.

    Even Michael Mann and colleagues must have realised that the actual mean radiation penetrating Earth’s surface is only about 163W/m^2 and that gives temperatures around -40°C. The “disinformation” they decided to promulgate then came down to the false claim that the radiation occurring between the surface and the troposphere somehow helps the Sun to raise the surface temperatures to higher maximum temperatures each day. Well that’s a lot of raising to do from -40°C especially when that radiation between the surface and the troposphere is in general a process which cools the surface. You only have to consider data from a planet without a surface to realise all this is utter garbage, not just “disinformation” or mistaken concepts. It is deliberate deception because they hound down all valid counter arguments.

    So they must realise it’s all wrong because they go out of their way to try to rubbish the correct physics which explains why (b) is in fact correct.

    Valid physics is based on correct understanding and use of the laws of physics. It is a lack of understanding of such things as thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy and energy potentials which has meant that climatologists (with limited education in physics, and far less understanding) have got their physics wrong and got the world into a horrible mess, wasted billions and cost many lives.

    There is no valid physics which can be used to prove carbon dioxide could raise the surface temperature, not even by a tenth of a degree.

    All the climatology literature (such as in the IPCC website and Pierrehumbert’s book) is based on the false assumption about how the back radiation flux can supposedly be added to the solar flux and the total then used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to “explain” the 14°C to 15°C mean surface temperature.

    Pierrehumbert’s calculations very clearly fail to deduct the solar flux that is absorbed by the atmosphere, and so you never see the real figure of 163W/m^2 being used to get -40°C for the surface temperature. Then in the imaginary Earth without water vapor and other greenhouse gases, he still deducts about 30% for albedo, even though 20% is based on reflection by clouds which of course would not exist without water vapor. The plain fact is that these greenhouse gases prevent nearly half the solar radiation reaching the surface.

    Common sense (and empirical evidence) tells us that the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapor obviously forms clouds that shade us and cools the surface by a few degrees, rather than doing most of that incorrectly calculated “33 degrees of warming” which the IPCC loves to scare us with.

    A totally different paradigm involving gravity it what is really at play.

    Have a Happy (and dry) Christmas everyone.

  18. Can you feel overwhelmed when the area of Dubai schools comes up?

    Does the encounter appear confusing? You aren’t the only one if you are stressed by Top schools in Dubai out.
    There is help! Enjoy English schools in Dubai!
    By using this advice, you will discover Dubai schools to be exciting.

  19. always i used to read smaller articles which as well clear their motive, and that is also happening with this piece of writing
    which I am reading at this place.

  20. This one is way off the subject and many days too late to be related to your article in any way Roy, but I just want to thank you for all the bits of “Climate Sense” you have supplied my brain with during this past year. So HAPPY BIRTHDAY and may you have many more to come. OHD

  21. Cliamte Researcher says:

    A review of the new book “CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS 2014” by about 24 authors.

    The best and most relevant chapter in this new book is that by William Soon, namely Chapter 4 “Sun Shunned” in which he discusses things such as the eccentricity of the Sun’s orbit that I have also pointed out as the principal regulator of glacial periods.

    The rest of the chapters on the “science” do not discuss the valid physics which is really what does determine Earth’s surface temperatures. Instead the “lukes” all reiterate the false claim that carbon dioxide causes significant warming of the surface by radiative forcing. Nowhere is the assumed process of forcing actually discussed. We just get the usual false paradigm that carbon dioxide traps outward radiation and thus supposedly makes the surface warmer.

    Carbon dioxide does not trap thermal energy. It disposes of what it absorbs either by subsequent radiation or by sensible heat transfer (via molecular collisions) to other air molecules which outnumber it by 2,500 to 1. It also helps nitrogen and oxygen cool through such collisions, and may subsequently radiate the energy thus acquire out of the atmosphere.

    All radiation between regions at different temperatures can only transfer thermal energy from the warmer region (or surface) to a cooler region. This means all heat transfer in the troposphere is generally upwards to cooler regions, with a proportion always getting through to space. There is no thermal energy transferred to a warmer surface. The energy transfer is the other way. The Sun’s radiation is not helped by radiation from the atmosphere which is only sending back some of its own energy now with much lower energy photons. Radiating gases reduce the insulating effect by helping energy to escape faster, and that is why moist air in double glazed windows also reduces the insulating effect, just as does water vapor in the troposphere.

    Nowhere in the book do we see the surface temperature explained correctly using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No one ever does this, because it is an absolute stumbling block for climatologists. The mean solar flux entering the surface is only about 163W/m^2 after 52% of the solar radiation has been either absorbed or reflected by the surface, clouds or atmosphere. But such a low level of radiation would only produce a very cold -41°C. That’s even colder than what the IPCC claims would be the case, namely -18°C without greenhouse gases. They deduce that by assuming that the whole troposphere would be isothermal due to convective heat transfer, including sensible heat transfers by molecular collision.

    Hence all the “luke” authors fall for the trap of not actually explaining the existing surface temperature, let alone what carbon dioxide might or might not do. How could you work out the latter if you don’t know your starting point? The truth is that you cannot calculate the surface temperature of any planet that has a significant atmosphere by using radiation calculations. Hence all the considerations pertaining to radiation and absorption by carbon dioxide are totally within a wrong paradigm.

    That assumption by the IPCC (and thus by the “lukes” who have written this book) that the troposphere would be isothermal was rubbished in the 19th century by some physicists who understood the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is still being rubbished to this day, and even more so, now that physicists realise that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing to the point where there are no unbalanced energy potentials. In a gravitational field this state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when all the energy potentials involving gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and radiative energy balance out. That is when the environmental temperature gradient is attained, and the very fact that it exists enables us to explain all planetary surface temperatures (and the required energy flows) without the slightest reference to back radiation, let alone trace gases like carbon dioxide. Only water vapor has a significant effect in lowering that gradient because of its radiating properties. It thus cools the surface, and that puts a big spanner in the works for the IPCC et al.

  22. Dave Burton says:

    Here are a couple articles about California’s water problem, which claim that it’s largely due to environmental politics.

    This article is from Feb. 2013 (when there was no drought):


    This article is from early 2014 (a drought year):


    Here’s an excerpt from the 2013 Western Farm Press article:

    “This [2013] is not a drought year. The meager allotment is the result of too much water.

    Heavy rains in November and December created a water flush through the Delta, herding the threatened Delta smelt/minnow south, closer to water pumps that move water from the Delta to the San Luis Reservoir, a storage terminal near Los Banos, Calif., that collects state and federal project water for movement south to urban Californians and San Joaquin Valley farmers. To protect the endangered minnows, the pumps were periodically stopped through the winter. No pumps; no water south. Just water west into the ocean.

    The ridiculous environmental rules protecting the Delta minnow say the pumps can only gobble up 305 of the minnows in a water year, which ends Sept. 30. The count is already 232 — more than 75 percent of the limit. So to make sure pumps supply water to 25 million people and millions of acres of farmland consumes no more than four minnow buckets full of smelt — 800,000 acre-feet of water is gone.

    Mike Wade, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition points out, “Despite the heavy rain and snowfall earlier this water year in December, farmers will be receiving less water than last year, which was a dry water year.”

  23. All of our containers are used for SINGLE STREAM COMMINGLED
    RECYCLING, which implies that our customers are in a position to recycle
    the following material in one single container: glass bottles, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, cardboard, blended paper, phonebooks, magazines,
    spam, and many others. Can assist with the implementation and growth of the recycling packages for any size residence,
    neighborhood affiliation or business building.
    Save Time – fill out just one quick quote type and we’ll match you
    to companies offering the dumpster you are on the lookout for.
    Save Cash – you will get prices on dumpster leases from just a few of the top companies in your space.
    Will help you find and evaluate costs from the top roll off dumpster fowler california off dumpster rental firms in your space.

    You will get a good idea of how much a rental will price by trying at the
    chart above, however it’s essential to also factor in that almost
    all firms will also cost round $a hundred for delivery.

  24. office chair says:

    home office furniture nz that is affordable does not have to be horrid looking.
    There are many ways that are different that you could
    find great-looking office chairs that you would definitely adore.
    You are going to have a fantastic selection to choose
    from and a broad range of designer names and knock offs for half the price
    of the modern office chair that is costly.
    You’re going to be amazed at precisely how easy it is to discover what you would like.

  25. If you are like many Americans, summer is not summer without a camping trip to enjoy nature.
    The very first teaser is simply that, simply presenting our bear (voiced by Colin Firth),
    and ideally this 1 is an useful family movie. Security is the most
    salient factor in the Jamaica’s ever-expanding gated communities
    but it’s not the only plus.

  26. Hi! Quick question that’s totally off topic. Do you know how to make
    your site mobile friendly? My weblog looks weird when viewing from my iphone4.
    I’m trying to find a theme or plugin that might be able to correct
    this problem. If you have any suggestions, please share. Appreciate it!

  27. Video marketing campaigns, if utilized efficiently, certainly are a
    sure fire method to develop your company and boost your net
    income. In buy for video marketing youtube marketing services to
    work, nonetheless, it has to be done intelligently.
    The following short article is packed with guidance that will help you understand all
    that you have to find out about video production companies and hints.

  28. You can find three kinds of home builders-builders now.
    There’s the “top end custom show homes auckland”, the “generation builder”,
    along with the “small, hands-on builder”. While there are variants
    and hybrids within these three categories, these will be the fundamental kinds at function now.
    The trick for the prospective buyer would be to recognize which one
    may be the best fit for home style needs and their budget.

  29. That’s really attention-grabbing, You might be a incredibly qualified doodlekit. I signed up with ones rss and check forward to trying to find further of the amazing write-up Poker Tournament ,. Furthermore, We’ve embraced your website at my social networks

  30. Hi, the post was excellent and good. Thank you

Leave a Reply