Home/BlogAs I predicted, climate change has been blamed for the recent New England blizzard (e.g. from Bloomberg here). During that storm, Boston tied its 24-hr snowfall record at 23.6 inches.
Yet, as recently as January 6, we were told by USAToday that Boston’s lengthy 316-day streak *without* one inch of snowfall as of January 1st was caused by global warming.
So, which is it? Global warming causes less snow, or more snow?
When science produces contradictory claims, is it really science?
What’s coming up next is a snow and ice storm that will stretch all the way from the southern Rockies to northern New England. Here are NAM model forecast totals of snow, ice pellets, and freezing rain (respectively) from Tuesday evening through Thursday evening. All of the forecast models I follow (ECMWF, GFS, NAM, and Canadian) are in general agreement, with some variation in the north-south positioning:
Not shown is the westward extension of this into NW Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico. Also not shown is the eastward spreading of this mess into northern New England through Friday.
If anything like this forecast verifies, it’s going to cause huge disruptions.
It is getting increasingly difficult to not hate the chicken little’s of climate change, but I try not to.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. I’ve never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail…View
more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://Www.Easywork2.com
“So, which is it? Global warming causes less snow, or more snow?”
Dr. Roy, that is a false dichotomy. It is quite possible for warming to cause fewer snow storms, but for warm oceans to cause this particular storm to intensify and drop more snow. There is no contradiction.
TF, The Gulf Stream has been unusually warm of late, which may have contributed to the heavy snow fall along the coastal areas hit with snow over the weekend. Look at the anomalies on this web page. Zoom in to get a better view. Notice too the cold eddies which form in the flow, seen as blue patches to the south of the warm flow.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/cb/sst5km/
E. Swanson
YOU: “TF, The Gulf Stream has been unusually warm of late”
Are you just making that up?
I looked at the current temperatures of gulf water East and West and only a few temperature readings were above normal. Most were below average.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/coastal-water-temperature-guide/egof.html
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/coastal-water-temperature-guide/wgof.html
Norman,
You’re breaking rank. Get back in line.
stephen p anderson
I follow the science. Evidence based information tied together with logical rational thought. GHE is logical and based upon observations. I do not need to deny facts to feel good about myself and I don’t have to make up my own invalid physics to feel superior. I follow the real science and the real evidence.
The evidence for many claims by Climate Alarmists are not scientific so I do not accept them. On NPR every bad weather event is attributed to Climate Change. Every fire in the Western US is Climate Change. No evidence is presented. No historical research.
I can accept CO2 increase will result in an increase of Earth’s surface but that does not mean I will accept wild speculation on weather phenomena. I am glad Roy Spencer challenges this tactic. Cliff Mass also does and he will do it with quite a bit of information. So far I have not seen any climate change alarmism with weather pan out. When Texas had a terrible drought in 2012 it was the coming of the end. More of these coming soon. Now there have not been any severe droughts in 9 years. Moscow had a record heat wave a few years back. Did it continue? No but it was credited to Climate Change. Too much garbage when the Alarmists attribute all bad weather to Climate Change. There is zero science in these speculations and no evidence presented. Just making claims and offering opinions. It reminds me of Clint R on this blog. He offers endless opinions but offers zero facts or supporting evidence. The two types of minds are from the same cloth. Unscientific. I think you are too biased with your right-wing Conspiracy thinking. I wish you would return to the days of your scientific mind (when you took Chemistry classes and liked science, now you are just a right-wing stool)
I find myself agreeing with Norman. I would also challenge some of the statistics that others find all too convenient.
A los of stuff is put forward to support a position without being as scientifically accurate as it could be.
Norman is confused, again: “It reminds me of Clint R on this blog. He offers endless opinions but offers zero facts or supporting evidence.”
Norman, if I link to several recent comments where I offered “facts and supporting evidence”, would you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
BTW, you haven’t supported your “opinion” that there is a “real 255K surface”, yet.
Want to earn dollars easily? this online job gave you thousands of dollars every month. start receiving UGY every month this income just by working 1 or 2 hrs a day using mobile or any kind of PC. I have made $16429 last month by using this online job. just go to this website for more info.
=-=-=-> http://Www.WORKJOIN1.com
Norman, The moisture source area of interest RE the big snow fall is the Atlantic Gulf Stream off the coast of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic to New England.
E. Swanson
The link I posted has more extensive temperatures that go up the East Coast from Maine to Florida. Which temperatures give you an idea that warmer than normal water created this bomb cyclone event?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/coastal-water-temperature-guide/all.html
The water temperatures look normal for this time of year. Can you point me to one that gives your idea credibility?
Norman wrote:
You claim that your data shows ocean temperatures to “look normal”. Based on what? I presented a link to the temperature anomalies off shore, which provides some evidence of warmer than “normal” temperatures in the Gulf Stream as it exits the U.S. East Coast. That warmer than normal water would have been a source of additional water vapor which produced above normal snow fall along the coast during the storm.
E. Swanson
Based upon the actual measured temperature of the ocean water (in the left column) vs the average for a few months (to the right of the actual measured values).
Overall the Gulf stream water may be warmer but not for this storm. It showed no above normal temperatures in the actual measured values vs the long term average for some given locations along the East Coast.
Norman, One might think that coastal temperatures would be heavily influenced by local weather, where prevailing westerly winds would tend to cool the near shore surface waters. The Gulf Stream extends far off shore and it’s effects would be different than those coastal temperatures.
Look again at the sea-surface temperature page. Dial back to a few days before the storm and select anomalies. The graphic displays a very warm Gulf Stream leaving the NC Outer Banks and moving eastward across the North Atlantic. The storm moved over that area of warm water and that would likely have increased the precipitation down wind, i.e., over the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states.
Bloomberg says:
”The Gulf of Maine Research Institute reported this month that waters there are warming faster than 96% of the rest of global oceans.”
Thats normal. Its a statistic. It is certain that there will always be someplace that warms faster than other places. Its only not the case when folks believe warming is occurring equally due to evenly distributed gas.
So glory be! There is proof positive the variation is natural!!
bill,
Some people fail to realise that an average has both lower and higher values than itself in the data set from which it is derived.
You are aware of this, but I am sure many others don’t.
Yep one has to laugh at for example the new hockey stick built on 200 year slices.
They represent the range of temps over that 200 year slice as about the amount of warming we have seen since the end of the LIA. . . .170 years. They just dress it up with some averaging that suggests the modern daily temperature record would have no variation within a 200 year slice of cherry picked and sacred tree rings.
And thats before Steve McIntyre gets his hands on the underlying data sets.
But many as you say are not aware of the fact they are being led down the primrose path with carefully crafted gingerbread attractions designed by cannibalistic witches.
I actually have received $30,700 in no extra than 30 days via running part-time via a laptop. Just once I had misplaced my final job, (dro-88) I changed into so perturbed however happily I received this easy on-line provide now doing this I am equipped to get thousand of greenbacks from the consolation of my home. All of you may actually do that profession and advantage extra cash on-line traveling following site.
.
>>>>>>>>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
“It is certain that there will always be someplace that warms faster than other places. ”
Its a fair point. We don’t know how much of this regional warming is due to global climate change.
In 2022 many people are now joining online jobs very fast because it has potential. i joined this 3 months hg ago and in 3 months i totally received $50743 and all i was doing is copy and paste stuff in my part time. join now and start making money from this website.
=-=-=->> http://smartincome240.blogspot.com
Nate says:
Its a fair point. We don’t know how much of this regional warming is due to global climate change.
———————-
I would be more generic than that as we know regional warming such as in the ENSO region or in the NE Pacific Ocean has a temporary global warming effect under both multi-year and multi-decadal periods of time. So in fact we don’t know how much global warming is due to anthropogenic causes either.
ENSO is primarily short-noise that can be accounted for when studying long-term trends, just as volcanic eruptions can.
Less certain are effects of aerosols from pollution and fires.
Nate says:
ENSO is primarily short-noise that can be accounted for when studying long-term trends, just as volcanic eruptions can.
—————————
Nope you just think you ‘can’.
It is well known that ENSO involves the movement of water masses sufficient to change the global mean temperature in a small zone of the Pacific Ocean.
Frequency of warm to cold phases of ENSO account for some of the warming of the most recent 4 decades. Further 3 of the decades of the early 20th Century were similarly influenced and Climate models have failed to duplicate that with the current body of assumptions in those models.
Now its possible you consider yourself more competent at that than the climate modelers but you should do something to establish that before just blurting out such an ignorant handwave.
Bottom line here Nate is ENSO produces a shortterm wave of heat that can exceed a half a degree on the global mean. The oceans store massive quantities of heat and ocean currents that move those water masses have a rather apparent multi-decadal effect during times of one phase dominating over another. And one should be aware that these as far as oceans go are somewhat meagre movements of water masses as far as our knowledge extends because we know practically nothing about deep ocean currents.
The average age of water not seeing the surface of the ocean is estimated to be 1,500 years. thats a pretty slow turnover rate.
In freshwater lakes are known to turnover over night. One in Africa killed thousands in a turnover event that released methane into the atmosphere that drifted through communities afterwards.
What that tells us is we have one heckuva a lot to learn before we can handwave the effect of ENSO and/or Ocean Oscillations away.
If you want to get into it deeper there are a lot of interesting facts. A typical single ENSO phase is around 5 years, making an ENSO cycle (a warm and cold phase) about a decade. . . .seems to fit with the decadal step up warming we have seen or at least fits it a lot better than the rate we are emitting CO2.
Another one is the studies that identified the PDO. Series of ENSO events favoring a single phase move fish stocks around the ocean in much the same way a predicted for climate change. That too is in sync with ENSO when CO2 emissions are not.
I could go on as there is a lot more but yo daddy is real good at handwaving as if his institutions profited from the money poured on them to solve the AGW crisis.
And gee how about another coincidence? The most adamant of those scientists work for the institutions gittin the most. You might say they specialize in it.
“before just blurting out such an ignorant handwave.’
Sure seems like a lot of handwaving in there, Bill.
Do you know the magnitude of the ENSO produced T variation that is long term? IOW beyond the obvious 1-5 y variation.
Nate I cut my teeth on large scale computer modeling.
I cannot prove the cause of ENSO nor the PDO but nevertheless the global temperature record displays historic major temperature excursions that current climate modeling does not duplicate.
That doesn’t mean the models are total hogwash. What it means is the models are not reliable predictors of future climate yet there are very large special interest groups that perceive a benefit in pretending they are more reliable than observations.
And as long as you “predict” that instead of “postdict” it there is no problem. In 2000 the IPCC said: “Winters will be warmer with more rain and less snow” immediately preceding the snowiest decade in the northern hemisphere ever recorded. So now they say winters can be snowier or rainier and global warming says so. See the problem?
Except that the majority winds are from the land, not from the sea.
https://imgur.com/a/oUtkqsV
Yes, the “we never see snow again”, is similar to our icehouse global climate becoming like Venus. It’s dumb “newspapers” and we always had and will always have fake/dumb/hysteric “news”.
With motto, if it bleeds it leads. It is the nature of it.
Global warming or global cooling is about the average temperature of
our ocean- which is currently about 3.5 C.
ie:
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
And I would 90% is an large understatement. I would say closer to 100%.
And likewise when the Holocene had most the Sahara Desert was grassland with forests and we had warmer Arctic, the ocean was warmer.
And that was called the Holocene Climate Optimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
And before this when North America was covered with Ice sheet, which rapidly melted, also a warmer ocean.
I have thinking recently about how/why the Antarctica causes global cooling. When the Antarctica moved closer to south pole, marks the beginning of our icehouse global climate. Or 34 million year Age, “Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
The simple mechanism of why we in icehouse climate is cold water falls, but the falling cold water is short term warming effect. falling cold water is long term cooling effect. And in terms a greenhouse global climate, the long warming effect would falling warm salty water. Though in icehouse climate, we have some falling warm salty water, but have more cold water falling.
And broadly speaking it seems the location of Antarctica creates a machine which causes cold water to fall. But one also say the land mass is occupying ocean area which could otherwise have falling cold water.
But anyhow, not what I was thinking about. I was thinking sea ice
and why Antarctica was on average 10 C colder during lowest level of Global CO2. And again, why is southern ocean was colder, exactly.
One interesting aspect of silly idea of Greenland and/or Antarctica ice mass falling in the ocean, is the cooling effect of warming all that ice- it’s almost way to cool the planet. It’s not possible for number of reasons. But Antarctica does have lot polar ice it is melting each year.
Or polar sea ice is long term warming effect and short term cooling effect when melts in regards to ocean. But sea ice is not liquid ocean that warms the air and so the land. Or lack liquid water is drying effect.
Or we think Antaractia is dry now, it seems must have a lot drier during glaciation periods.
“Yes, the “we never see snow again”, is similar to …”
Actually, this is similar to a strawman. The original statement said snow would be *rare* in *England”. If people somehow equate this to ‘no snow anywhere any time’ then it is a gross mischaracterization of the original statement.
Snow is rare anywhere.
And it rare for media to focus on anything important.
Though weather reports could be about best one could expect.
And it’s fairly cheap news. Cheap for news and useful to the
news consumer.
And global warming a dumb spice to it.
Though economically it’s appealing for the news to fill the news
space with it.
And dumber is a addictive drug for corporate news.
Curious – what were the SST during the The Northeastern United States blizzard of 1978 was a catastrophic, historic nor’easter that struck New England, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the New York …
Which would have been prior to any potential observable man-made GW.
Indeed, just like hurricanes, Nor’easters are not unusual and not caused by climate change.
Each storm is unique.
“While a typical nor’easter brings steady snow for six to twelve hours, the Blizzard of ’78 brought heavy snow for an unprecedented full 33 hours as it was blocked from heading into the North Atlantic by a strong Canadian high pressure area”
While in this week’s storm the record-tying Boston snowfall came in < 24 h.
What is claimed is that warmer oceans might intensify such storms. Higher wind, higher precipitation than would otherwise have been.
The 78 storm was also historic for so many people getting stuck on the roads.
“One of the major problems with the Blizzard of 1978 was the lack of foreknowledge about the storm’s severity. Weather forecasting in New England is difficult, and meteorologists had developed a reputation as being inaccurate. Forecasting techniques and technology had improved dramatically in the 1970s, but the public was still quite skeptical. Snow failed to arrive in Monday’s pre-dawn hours as predicted, and many locals felt it to be another failed forecastdespite the accuracy of National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters’ predictions concerning the Great Blizzardand they went to work and school as normal. Because of this, people had neither time nor incentive to prepare. The region was already reeling after storms in January 1978 that left nearly two feet of snow in some areas of New England”
Roy wrote:
Of course, there are always going to be differing opinions among scientists until the available evidence solidly supports one side of the discussions, that is, until new evidence refutes that now accepted explanation of reality.
Not to forget that the news media reporters are not likely to understand the nuances of the available information and some media weather forecasters don’t present the science very well either. I cringe every time I hear some weather person give a statement like “The low pressure pulls/draws warm/cold/wet air from one region to another”, when physics tells us that a fluid can only respond pressure or shearing forces. We live at the bottom of an ocean of air and density differences between air masses can result in vertical motions. When storms form along frontal boundaries between moving air masses which exhibit different wind directions, the storms do not cause those air masses to move.
Here’s an interesting web display to play with. Notice the big weekend Nor’ Easter storm is moving toward Europe.
Have you looked at the temperature under that swirl of wind?
https://imgur.com/a/6MW7Rtr
It looks like all those trucks in Ottawa are going to get stuck in the middle of the storm.
well apparently, the plan is now to stay longer, and police are quite happy there been no problems and want them to stay longer.
A visible stratospheric front from New Mexico to New England. It will pass over the entire western US earlier.
https://i.ibb.co/WnnFPBj/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f120.png
The front is now visible across western North America.
https://i.ibb.co/MB4xSRB/Screenshot-1.png
“As I predicted, climate change has been blamed for the recent New England blizzard (e.g. from Bloomberg here). During that storm, Boston tied its 24-hr snowfall record at 23.6 inches.
Yet, as recently as January 6, we were told by USAToday that Bostons lengthy 316-day streak *without* one inch of snowfall as of January 1st was caused by global warming.
So, which is it? Global warming causes less snow, or more snow?”
Seems clear enough. You can expect snow to occur less often. When it does come it will be more intense.
Whether it means that total snow will increase or decrease probably depends where you are.
I don’t know about CONUS, but the trend in Ireland is warmer wetter Winters. We haven’t seen more than a light covering since 2010. In our case that definitely means less snow.
The GCW/FMI SWE Tracker illustrates the current winter records for 2014/2015, relative to the long-term mean and variability of the snow water equivalent for the Northern Hemisphere (±1 standard deviation calculated for 1982-2012), excluding mountains. The historical SWE record is based on the time series of measurements by two different space-borne passive microwave sensors. The current data combines these satellite measurements with groundbased weather station records in a data assimilation scheme. Updated daily by GlobSnow, a Global Cryosphere Watch initiative, funded by the European Space.
http://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg
Will February be warm in Europe?
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=56;-3;1&l=temperature-500hpa&t=20220214/0300
Friday, February 04, 2022, 500 hPa level.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=43;-69;2&l=temperature-500hpa&t=20220204/2100
“climate change has been blamed for the recent New England blizzard”
Noreaster’s are well known in New England.
Cant read the Bloomberg article. Did they really ‘blame’ climate change for the storm?
Or did they say that the storm could have been intensified by the warming of the ocean?
The ocean off the East coast has indeed warmed over the decades.
Roy, as a meteorologist, are you willing to state that such added ocean warming would NOT have that effect on a ‘noreaster’?
Most other news sources did not mention climate change, AFAIK.
Are you willing to state that the ocean off the East coast has not both warmed and cooled in the past? Many times?
A meaningless question in this context. You should be asking:
What is the trend?
No, it isn’t.
EM,
You wrote –
“You should be asking:
What is the trend?”
And why is that? Too lazy or incompetent to ask it yourself?
You do realise that trends have no predictive properties, don’t you?
Want to earn dollars easily? this online job gave you thousands of dollars every month. start receiving UGY every month this income just by working 1 or 2 hrs a day using mobile or any kind of PC. I have made $16429 last month by using this online job. just go to this website for more info.
=-=-=-> http://Www.WORKJOIN1.com
Most of the wind is from the North/North West.
The wind direction was ccw around the cyclone, the center was offshore and moved north, typical noreaster.
Sure
https://imgur.com/a/oUtkqsV
31st? What u takin bout, RLH?. I was talking about the Noreaster that just hit on Saturday the 29th.
Look out to the East at the HIGH pressure system.
??
“In an anticyclone (high pressure) the winds tend to be light and blow in a clockwise direction (in the northern hemisphere)”
The low pressure system that rolled up the East coast offshore met the high pressure very cold system that created the snow.
Without the very cold arctic air from the North, driven by the jet stream, we would just have had rain.
Sure. And whered the moisture come from? A hhint is that most snow was very near the coast.
Are you saying that the snow that is about to hit (again) is caused by purely by moisture from the coast and none of it by the cold air from the artic?
P.S. This and the last snow pulse are not near the coast but a lot further inland. Some of it is just below the Canadian border.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMUqOIPJEt4&t=744s
“Massive Snow & Ice Storm! Significant Major Widespread Impacts! Full Breakdown…POW Weather Channel”
“Are you saying that the snow that is about to hit (again) is caused purely by moisture from the coast and none of it by the cold air from the artic?”
Are you saying that 9 > 11?
Oh, I see. Maybe I can infer the answer from you never having said that!
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/climate-fueled-noreaster-forecast-to-bomb-u-s-east-coast
“The key ingredient of a weather bomb is the collision of cooler air with much warmer air, and that is on hand. A cold front from Canada dropped temperatures to a low of 17 Fahrenheit (-8 Celsius) in New York Citys Central Park overnight Wednesday into Thursday, while in the Atlantic Ocean, the water is warmer than normal.”
Are you saying (without proof) that it is the larger moisture that caused the weather rather than the very cold air from the Arctic?
Now we have warm water causing the storm, not the cold air from the Arctic.
Storms like this one are caused by a collision between TWO or more air masses.
And as the article clearly states, one of these was the cold Canadian air.
You don’t read.
It is idiotic to assign the CAUSE of a storm to just ONE of the colliding air masses.
And what part of ‘never having said that’ did you miss, troll?
Nate,
Everything affects everything else. As Edward Lorenz (a meteorologist) once wrote as the title of a famous talk “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterflys Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?”
– or a snowstorm in New England, or . . .
Chaos rules. If you deny the existence of chaos, that’s alright too. The uncertainty principle has been established by experimenting to be the most certain thing known.
Start on that basis, and you soon realise that predicting the motion of the atmosphere is well, impossible! Physics in action. You don’t have to agree. The universe doesn’t care whether you do or not.
Neither do I.
“Start on that basis, and you soon realise that predicting the motion of the atmosphere is well, impossible”
Sure, meteorology is just another pointless, useless science.
Pure luck on the bomb cyclone!
N,
You wrote –
“Sure, meteorology is just another pointless, useless science.”
Really? Why do you think that?
Are you refusing to accept the reality of the uncertainty principle? It might be inconvenient, but is one of the most experimentally supported principles of all time (if not the most)!
Reject it all you like. The uncertainty principle is a fact, whether you like it or not.
C’mon, Mike –
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/
It has little to do with statistical indeterminacy.
Wistful Wee Willy,
Maybe you could try appealing to a physics authority, rather than the wishful thinking of “philosophers”.
I am happy to accept the verdict of fact, as evidenced by experimental results.
You are a moron, appealing to the authority off other morons. If you can point to any experiment which demonstrates that the position and velocity can determined exactly at the same time, I”ll point to a moron who is either a fraud or a faker.
Philosophise that, moron.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you could try to read the entry. It cites Werner himself.
Leave mythomanie to Gordo.
Weird Wee Willy,
Maybe I should ignore your moronic attempts to get me to waste my time. Who is Werner, idiot? If you mean Werner Heisenberg, why not say so, instead of trying to appear clever? If you don’t, who are you referring to and why?
Any moron can cite anything they like, and many do.
It is obvious you can’t justify disagreement with the uncertainty principle based on anything at all. Maybe you should try pretending to be a philosopher – you could come out with all sorts of moronic nonsense, and nobody would be the wiser.
Oh wait, you do that already!
Moron.
“uncertainty principle is a fact”
Swenson is our resident red herring specialist.
Does he even realize how far off target he’s missed?
Maybe Mike Flynn should ignore that too much play and no work makes him a dull sock puppet.
“Are you willing to state that the ocean off the East coast has not both warmed and cooled in the past?”
Do you have evidence that it has?
Point is, Stephen, that a warming trend is predicted for AGW and has happened.
Then the question is: does that ocean warming have an effect on storm intensity? Thats what I asked Roy.
“a warming trend is predicted for AGW”
which assumes that 100% of the warming is caused by mankind and 0% from nature. Something that both Roy and I disagree on.
There is no assumption that 100% of future warming will caused by mankind.
As for recent warming, here is the quote from the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
And here is the quote from IPCC AR6 SPM more recently:
“The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver12 of tropospheric warming since 1979 and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s.”
“More than half” and “main driver” =/= 100%
Carew to put a percentage rather than ‘more than half’?
*Care
So natural is <10% (approx) of human caused warming then? 0.1C to +0.1C compared to 0.8C to 1.3C.
You’ve left out the bit on internal variability.
“natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.”
Radom (i.e. internal variability) affects both human and other warming by definition.
Here you go:
https://www.ipcc.ch/about/contact/
… in response to, “Carew to put a percentage rather than ‘more than half’?”
Alternatively:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carewro01.shtml
So as usual no actual figures are given just as broad a definition as possible so that it can never be wrong.
“More than half” and “main driver” are both beliefs.
It ain’t science.
We know from science that ice cubes cannot boil water. Even if someone does not understand physics and thermodynamics, they should have an intuitive grasp that ice cubes cannot boil water. That means a cold sky cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface. Yet, still people believe in the AGW nonsense.
The science is clear. Why people want to believe in cults is not clear.
Yes, pups, ice cubes can not boil water. That says nothing about the effects of the atmosphere on the heated surface of the Earth below and the processes which maintain the surface temperature. Just more of your usual denialist anti-science.
Sorry Willard Jr, but the science is the science. Photons from a colder area cannot raise the temperature of a hotter surface.
Why do you want to believe otherwise?
Nate, see if this link works to read the Bloomberg article (and headline):
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/climate-fueled-noreaster-forecast-to-bomb-u-s-east-coast
Nate, see if this link works to read the Bloomberg article (and headline):
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/climate-fueled-noreaster-forecast-to-bomb-u-s-east-coast
Great, thanks Barry!
High danger from strong convection and ice rain.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=34.2;-92.9;4&l=rain-3h&t=20220203/1500
It will be massive amounts of ice rain, including in Texas.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=34.2;-92.9;4&l=rain-3h&t=20220203/1500
The stratospheric ozone indicates a circulation for 04/02/2022 at jet stream level (200 hPa).
https://i.ibb.co/hWVz4Jn/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f120.png
105 More Non-Global Warming/Non-Hockey Stick Temperature Records Added To The Database In 2021
Since 2019,there have been over 350 peer-reviewed scientific papers published showing no warming in the modern era and/or much warmer temperatures than today when CO2 levels ranged from 180 to 280 ppm (Holocene, Pleistocene).
Below is the link to the updated (now including 2021) database of non-hockey temperature records from locations across the world.
These hundreds of papers suggest a) Earth was multiple degrees warmer than today throughout much of the last 11,700 years (Holocene), and b) there has been nothing unusual about temperature changes in the modern era
https://notrickszone.com/2022/01/31/105-more-non-global-warming-non-hockey-stick-temperature-records-added-to-the-database-in-2021/
That turns out not to be the case. We are now warmer than at any time during the Holocene. The Holocene Optimum was 14.3C and we are now at 14.9C.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
BS. Prove it.
Stephen
“Prove it.”
I just did.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
And the same pattern has been replicated a number of times by different studies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#/media/File%3AHolocene_Temperature_Variations.png
if you think it’s wrong falsify it.
EM,
You wrote –
“I just did.” – prove it, that is.
Well, no you didn’t.
Your graphic is titled –
“This page shows estimates of past variation in global temperature”
Wild ass guesses called “estimates”, but it makes no difference. Proof of nothing except climate crackpottery, spun on the wheel of wishful thinking!
Did you really think you could get away with wishful thinking being accepted as fact?
Moron.
Eman, how did you teach biology all your life and don’t know how science works? Staggers the imagination. Berry’s paper is falsifiable. He postulates that outflow is proportional to the level. He also states CO2 must obey the equivalence principle in that human CO2 and natural CO2 are indistinguishable to nature. Falsify either one of those, and you can falsify his theory.
You can’t use a piggy bank Bern Model solution. What is your foundational equation that describes the conservation of mass? The Bern model is a solution to nothing. It is a construct designed to promote a narrative. It isn’t science.
How would you falsify Ed’s Troll Bridge model, Troglodyte?
Stephen
I’ve shown to my own satisfaction that Berry’s model breaks the laws of diffusion, and 2LOT. I’m not interested in further debate.
Now, would you care to explain why data showing that we started downhill towards the next ice 6000 years ago is wrong.
Berry doesn’t seem like he’s too concerned about satisfying you. Maybe you can get the IPCC to use your statements as a refutation for Berry’s model? I’d give them a call if I were you.
>Now, would you care to explain why data showing that we started downhill towards the next ice 6000 years ago is wrong.
You do understand, as a former biology teacher, that you have not provided any data? I really feel for your former students.
Silly Stephen.
From the OED.
data
[ˈdeɪtə]
NOUN
facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
Always start with the definition. Good job. Maybe there’s hope for you.
Still not willing to commit on whether your pipes are in series or parallel?
Still not able to explain why Berry removes the long known Revelle Factor from his rate equations without any scientific reason?
I thought chemistry was your field. But you are still not able understand the buffering effect of the ocean, and why it leads to a bottleneck on carbon flow to the deep ocean?
This looks fun.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60221521
IPCC models from 2013 have shown to be wildly inaccurate.
Ah, the good old Marcott 2013 hockey stick.
It is amazing how poor science continues to live on long after it has been shown to be false.
As with other studies of this kind, there is this little problem that none of the proxies chosen actually reflect a hockey-stick like uptick in the 20th & 21st centuries. Which makes you ask, how did those self same proxies react to higher temperatures in previous times?
There is plenty of evidence that the Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than present, if you care to look.
From recent papers of GLOBAL temperatures..
“Furthermore, our reconstructions demonstrate that the modern global temperature has exceeded annual levels over the past 12,000 years and probably approaches the warmth of the last interglacial period (128,000 to 115,000 years ago).”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x
When compared with recent temperature changes11, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4
“Furthermore, our reconstructions demonstrate…”
“…our reanalysis indicates…”
Jack, “reconstructions”, “reanalysis”, guesses, opinions, estimates, assumptions, and dreams ain’t science.
> dreams ain’t science.
Kekule enters Roy’s chat.
Wee Willy Dimwit,
This Kekule?
“Influence of Kekul Dream On Benzene Structure Disputed.”
Peer reviewed and all. You can look it up if you want to.
As Clint R said “Jack, reconstructions, reanalysis, guesses, opinions, estimates, assumptions, and dreams aint science.”
Clint R is right, and you are a moron. If you don’t want to accept reality, go off and study philosophy. Plenty of reality avoiding morons to keep you company.
Mike Flynn,
Link or it does not exist.
Aw diddums!
Whacky Wee Willy,
If you say so, moron, if you say so.
Indeed I do, Mike, indeed I do.
Would you prefer if Crick entered Roy’s chat?
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Would you prefer if Crick entered Roy’s chat?”
Got the incompressible gibberish gotcha machine almost operational have you?
What a moron you are!
Measured Formularization, you miss a simple point –
Scientists do science. They dream. Their dreams can help them do science. The idea that dreams can’t be science runs contrary to facts.
Suck it up.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Scientists do science. They dream. Their dreams can help them do science. The idea that dreams cant be science runs contrary to facts.
Suck it up.”
Dreams are not science. They are dreams. You may see a Greenhouse Effect in your dreams, for example.
Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Dream on.
> Dreams are not science.
Are you suggesting that the periodic table isn’t science, Mike?
How about natural selection?
Perhaps some of the 4K proofs Ramanujan left us?
And that’s notwithstanding Loewi’s hypothesis that nerve signals were transmitted through our chemistry!
It’s a pity you never produced any kind of intellectual work. You’d know that dreams are quite important to a creative process.
What a sad silly sock puppet that makes you!
Someone once said –
“Everybody Talks About the Weather, But Nobody Does Anything About It.”
Plenty of talk here.
Here’s what Roy Spencer, PhD, wrote –
“Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.”
And of course, climate being the average of past weather, what else could anybody possibly expect? Unchanging weather – forever?
Jeez!
They are peeing on your feet and telling you the ice is melting
Hispanic Students Were Forced To Learn Critical Race Theory. They Hated It.
Kali Fontanilla discovered that not only was CRT being taught in the classroom—her minority students were failing it.
ROBBY SOAVE | 1.31.2022 9:00 AM
https://reason.com/2022/01/31/critical-race-theory-taught-in-classroom-california/
Why do children hate Lefties?
Is Judith Curry an alarmist? From 2012.
The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years may be increasing winter cold surges and snowfall in Europe and North America, says a study by a research team led by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists Jiping Liu and Judith Curry. The paper, titled “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in a press release. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”
Over the years, Mrs Curry dramatically changed her meaning.
Some Germans use to name such people ‘Wendehals’ (of course not in the sense of ‘wryneck’ here, but rather of ‘turncoat’).
It could be she is really a scientist capable of changing her opinion when the data indicates she is wrong.
Could also be that Judy realized that contrarians have the fastest track to fandom.
Being an irrelevant and boring troll isn’t getting you any fans. Why don’t you try something else?
Dear Kennui,
I have been at Judy since she started Judy’s.
In fact I have been following her before she started Judy’s.
I recall for instance a famous thread at Keith’s.
Perhaps you should sit that one out and kibitz from afar.
Just a thought.
Weird Wee Willy,
Well, that comment of yours was completely irrelevant, wasn’t it? Who cares where you have been or what you did?
Have you managed to find a copy of the missing Greenhouse Theory? No?
No wonder you post the retarded nonsense you do.
Keep denying reality.
Moron.
Mike Flynn – the word “irrelevant” might not mean what you make it mean.
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn the word “irrelevant”might not mean what you make it mean.”
That you refer to me as Mike Flynn indicates that the word irrelevant means exactly what I mean it to mean. That you are so stupid as to use that word “might” (so beloved of fellow climate crackpots), just reinforces my use of the word irrelevant.
Carry on making irrelevant comments, moron.
Mike, Mike – notice the distinction:
You are irrelevant.
The fact that I am addressing you does not make my comment irrelevant.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn the word irrelevant might not mean what you make it mean.
Cheers.”
I’m sure Mike Flynn would say that “irrelevant” means exactly what he means it to mean. I would be more inclined to believe Mike Flynn than a witless moron like you.
By the way, how is your search for the Greenhouse Theory going?
Maybe if you repeat the mantra Mike Flynn three times, thusly, Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn, you might be able to turn your fantasy into reality!
Then you wouldn’t need to waste your time writing pointless and irrelevant comments like –
“Mike, Mike notice the distinction:
You are irrelevant.
The fact that I am addressing you does not make my comment irrelevant.”
Carry on, moron.
Of course you’re sure of what Mike Flynn would say, Flynnson – you’re his sock puppet!
Embrace it.
“It could be she is really a scientist capable of changing her opinion when the data indicates she is wrong.”
Of what data you you speak?
She refers to a lot of data. I guess you can take your pick. https://judithcurry.com/
JD,
You wrote –
“Of what data you you speak?”
You really are a simplistic retard, if that’s the best gotcha you can come up with.
Can you do any better?
Try harder next time.
JD,
Don’t mind Flynnson. He’s Roy’s oldest sock puppet.
Ice is melting? So what!
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_map_La_EN_20210800.png
Of course, DMI is good for the Skepticos when it tells us everything is OK, but evil when it doesn’t.
And above all, when Skepticos see the word ‘GRACE’ in the graph below
polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_curve_La_EN_20210800.png
they won’t stop telling you: ‘GRACE data is FUDGED‘.
*
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
There you read:
” This data shows that most of the loss of ice occurs along the edge of the ice sheet, where independent observations also indicate that the ice is thinning, that the glacier fronts are retreating in fjords and on land, and that there is a greater degree of melting from the surface of the ice.
High on the central region of the ice sheet, however, the GRACE satellites show that there is a small increase in the mass of the ice. Other measurements suggest that this is due to a small increase in precipitation/snowfall. ”
I tell you: {sarc} That is all alarmism! {/sarc} (HTML 7)
I forgot to add: forget the stat about sea level rise, because it is not at all the point I want to show.
Aug 2021 compared to to April 2002? In the Northern Hemisphere! Not surprising that it shows such a difference.
DMI talks about Greenland, RLH, and not about the NH.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_curve_La_EN_20210800.png
Don’t try to manipulate reality, it’s useless.
B,
You wrote –
“Dont try to manipulate reality, it’s useless”
Yes. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature – can’t manipulate that, can you?
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_map_La_EN_20210800.png
was your link.
Can you read what was on that image? I merely quoted it.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/PolarPortal/season_report/polarportal_saesonrapport_2021_EN.pdf
Fig 3.
https://imgur.com/a/CF5roPU
The 2020-2021 blue line is above the mean, not below.
P.S. I thought that Greenland was in the Northern Hemisphere, which is what I indicated.
hallo
In 2022 many people are now joining online jobs very fast because it has potential. i joined this 3 months ago and in 3 months i totally received $50743 and all i was doing is copy and paste stuff in my part time. join now and start making money from this website.
=-=-=->>
In 2022 many people are now joining online jobs very fast because it has potential. i joined this 3 months ago and in 3 months i totally received $50743 and all i was doing is copy and paste stuff in my part time. join now and start making money from this website.
=-=-=->> http://smartincome240.blogspot.com
The USAToday article is actually some website called wickedlocal.com. Mainstream media?
Still, posting two news items and then saying, “When science produces contradictory claims, is it really science?” is like complaining about two car mechanics contradicting each other on rocket science.
Wouldn’t it be better to promote the science rather than the media views of the science?
Ah, I see the article is originally from USAToday.
Hadley Barndollar is a USA Today reporter, and his article appeared on USA Today. Dr. Spencer’s commentary was about the leftist media. The leftist media is trying to advance a narrative that if we don’t stop emitting CO2, terrible things will happen, see!
I missed the bit where Dr Spencer spoke about “leftist” media. Could you quote me what he said on that, please?
b,
Are you referring to –
“Dr. Spencer’s commentary was about the leftist media.”?
This is as absolutely correct as Mark Zuckerberg’s version of “fact checking” – opinion protected by the First Amendment.
Do you have an objection to freedom of expression? Presumably, you are just being a sarcastic moron, trying to make someone look stupid so you can feel better about yourself.
Go on – express yourself. Say what you think. Maybe somebody will care. Or keep posing witless gotchas – do you think anybody will care about that, either?
I missed the bit where Dr Spencer spoke about “leftist” media. Could you quote me what he said on that, please?
B,
No.
Roy was definitely talking about the alarmist media, and that covers most political bases today. Ostensibly “rightist” media, at least in my country, has done an about-face on climate change and is printing stories like the ones Roy linked.
He specifically mentioned two leftist outlets, USA Today and Bloomberg.
USA Today is leftist???
“It has been shown to maintain a generally centrist audience, in regards to political persuasion.” Wiki.
There was a visit to Defence Research Establishment Ottawa (DREO). The guy giving the tour made mention about one of the early satellite projects. One of the janitors told the engineers that the puck shaped satellite wouldn’t ‘fly’ basing his projections on what he had seen a puck do during hockey games. The engineer rechecked the arithmetic and found the janitor was right.
I wouldn’t be disparaging about car mechanics discussing rocket science.
Bindidon says:
they wont stop telling you: GRACE data is FUDGED.
–
Thanks, Bindi.
Agree with you entirely.
–
MASSIVE ERROR BARS
No, angech.
You don’t agree with me, but with all those who claim about ‘MASSIVE ERROR BARS’ every time they want to discredit something.
Do you have a bit of a clue of the ‘MASSIVE ERROR BARS’ you would see when UAH’s original satellite data was published?
You are so pretty naive, angech…
tim…”So, which is it? Global warming causes less snow, or more snow?”
Dr. Roy, that is a false dichotomy. It is quite possible for warming to cause fewer snow storms, but for warm oceans to cause this particular storm to intensify and drop more snow. There is no contradiction”.
***
There is something you missed, that you’re an idiot.
C’mon, Gordo.
Leave that to Mike Flynn.
Wily Wee Willy,
C’mon moron, give us a Mike Flynn quote.
Saves effort all round.
Go for it. I’m sure Mike Flynn would thank you.
Mike Flynn,
Why would I quote your words now?
Too lazy or incompetent to do it yourself?
Oooooooooooooooohooohhhhhhhhoooohhhh!
Whacky Wee Willard,
You’re learning, laddie.
Keep up the flattery.
Mike,
No.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You can’t stop the flattery, moron.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is said.
Keep it up!
Try another gotcha, dummy.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Keep flattering me with imitation. Who can object to being flattered?
Not me, that’s for sure!
I’m actually showing how you imitate me, Mike.
Weird Wee Willy,
If you say so, Moron, if you say so.
Others can form their own opinions.
> If you say so
Indeed, Mike.
For instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1130208
swannie..”Roy wrote:
When science produces contradictory claims, is it really science?
Of course, there are always going to be differing opinions among scientists until the available evidence solidly supports one side of the discussions, that is, until new evidence refutes that now accepted explanation of reality”.
***
In the context referenced by Roy, you have legitimate scientists trying to interpret real data from satellites while alarmists use unvalidated climate models and a surface record that has been adjusted (fudged) so much it is barely recognizable.
Not content with their pseudo-science, the alarmists attack Roy and John of UAH, trying to discredit their valid science. Not content with such chicanery, they try to block papers from Roy and John, as IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones, of Had-crut, bragged about in the Climategate emails.
This is not a difference of opinion, it’s cheaters trying to undermine scientists with integrity. Now the cheaters at Google are in on the political act.
This wasn’t a battle of science views, this was two news media articles interpreting the science, and I don’t see a contradiction, seeing as one article is about snowstorm frequency, and one is about intensity.
The actual science on these issues has not yet been brought here.
I want to complain.
Where are our temperature drops that we deserve.
Each month I tune in and hope.
Is that 5 month delayed drop going to come?
Nope.
When will we ever get a drop??
So, which is it? Global warming causes less snow, or more snow?
–
Only February to go for more snow?
Lets hope we have a third and a fourth week of record cold events for as soon as Spring comes, people forget.
–
To continue my moaning only a small arctic ice increase today but lots of potential.
100,000 over next 4 days would see it over the lowest level with 5 weeks of freeze up yet to come.
Must say the colder it is up North the more the ice extent must go.
Perhaps?
An Arctic front is moving south and east over the US. Dangerous ice rain on the front.
https://i.ibb.co/r75cBbz/Screenshot-3.png
For those who wish to say that it is the Gulf Stream temperatures and hence higher atmospheric moisture that caused the latest snow storm then the below might be of interest.
“Does More Moisture in the Atmosphere Lead to More Intense Rains?” 6 Dec 2021
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03467521/document
“It is typically interpreted that more moisture in the atmosphere leads to more intense rains. This notion may be supported, for example, by taking a scatter plot between rain and column precipitable water. The present paper suggests, however, that the main consequence of intense rains with more moistures in the atmosphere is that there is a more chance to happen, rather than of an increase in the expected magnitude”
Also from that paper:
“The purpose of the present paper is to address this question by adopting data from a single region as just described. The results obtained are tentative at the best, although the authors expect its generality, as argued in the final discussion section. Rather, the main contribution of the present paper is to propose a solid methodology to address this question objectively based on a probabilistic formulation (Sec. 3), and to provide a demonstrative case”
It is interesting, but hardly conclusive! It is hardly even germain, given the large differences in geography and climate between Italy and Massachusetts.
Water vapor in the USA is so different to that in the Med.
Rainfall is a complex function of water vapor, temperature, wind, topography (and more). So while water molecules are the same, the other factors are far different. Even the authors of the paper don’t pretend they can simply extrapolate this study to other regions.
Is the future going to bring more snow or less snow? Don’t know, but the alarmists say that both are bad and that we should destroy civilization now before it’s too late.
We demonstrate a strong decline effect in ocean acidification impacts on fish behaviour one of the most striking examples of this phenomenon in the field of ecology to date, adds Clements.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/03/climate-fish-scare-turns-out-to-be-just-a-fish-story/
So, ocean acidification not an issue.
And natural gas use “has returned” as way to lower CO2 emissions
as well as, surprisingly, nuclear energy.
As long as Countries follow or at least look at South Korea’s
way of doing it, nuclear power use is a pretty good solution for
world energy needs.
I wish we make some headway in ocean methane use. Japan seemed most involved with it. I going to get updated on it.
–Methane is a greenhouse gas even stronger than carbon dioxide that should be recovered to keep it from exacerbating global warming.–
https://japan-forward.com/interview-chiharu-aoyama-is-protecting-japans-seas-by-recovering-fire-ice/
I think that good point, but it’s also huge waste of resource for much of it getting in the atmosphere.
–What kind of recovery technology are you developing for this natural resource?
The idea is to set up a large dome-shaped membrane on the seafloor and mine methane hydrate from underneath it. Just the methane would be separated and transported via pipe to an offshore platform (recovery production base).
Any methane leaked into the sea would be collected inside the dome, so we expect to achieve a high recovery rate. In addition, because the area would be covered with a membrane, suspended solids (substances mixed in the water) from the mining process would not leak out, thereby limiting any impact on the surrounding environment.–
Plus the gas would be a high pressure.
{are we going underwater settlements, also? One thing you have people which adjusted to high air pressures, or human resource of human who can operate at high air pressure- ie, could be useful related to ocean exploration in general}
You’re not aware that you’re contradicting yourself, in this comment? Warming cannot cause less snow & also cause more snow, which is what the MSM regularly claims.
Less or More, which is it?
Its also quite possible that you have no scientific verifiable data to prove its quite possible which as you well know isnt a verifiable claim.
First of all, at the start of each round both teams will get a certain amount of money based on whether they won or lost the previous round. Sometimes teams will http://csgo-bets.org/ have enough to buy everything they need to best execute their gameplan. When they dont have enough for that, they will need to use tricks and different tactics in order to make the best of what they have. This can lead to extremely exciting gameplay to watch, especially in competitive environments.
High quality Mp3 player with slot pg So there are participants. Both familiar names and newcomers are eager to participate in large numbers since we have chosen high-quality slot games for each slot php game.slot pg
Great post, thank you for sharing!
https://www.excavationdoneright.com/excavation-contractors-orlando-fl