The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?  (Read 50218 times)

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Yelder - Graham made a very good point that there is too much politics and not enough science in this debate and I am afraid your last post exemplifies that!  This is a science website and yet the links/quotes you have provided are
Chris Monckton - a hereditary peer and very right wing politician
Nigel Lawson - a conservative chancellor of the exchequer and right wing politician
Heartland Institute - a libertarian thinktank that denies link between secondary smoking and cancer
Pete Ridley - a forum contributor
Me
Britannica.com

You have amply demonstrated the politicization of this debate.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Pete, I mean Yelder, I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying you don't believe the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, or do you agree that it is, but you don't believe it can trap heat in the atmosphere?
 

Post by Peter Ridley under another name click to view.

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Shrunk
Imatfaal, although as you say
Quote
This is a science website
it is not only my comments on this forum that have brought politics into the discussions. If you don’t believe me have another read of the comments on this topic. The scientific debate about the causes of changes in global temperature (whether hotter or colder) and rainfall (more or less) - used as the basis for defining the different global clmates (see Koppen) was destroyed by interference from the power-hungry, the politicians and the environmentalists long before I became involved.

Geezer, can you point to anywhere that I (or Pete Ridley for that matter)) ever said that 
Quote
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing[/quote
or that I
Quote
don't believe it can trap heat in the atmosphere
? No, I thought not.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
This month's Scientific American features an interview with Richard A. Muller who was wheeled in to testify before Congress on climate change. Everyone thought he was going to take the "denial" view but he shocked everyone by saying that generally the mainstream climate scientists had done a good job and their predictions were holding up well against observation. He was particularly pleased that Jim Hansen (NASA Goddard Institute) welcomed his looking into this because he welcomed a critical look that was devoid of politics. Like most of us, he does not like the politics overriding the good science, whichever side is taken.
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Hi graham.d, can you provide a link to any research paper of Professor Muller’s that cover the process and drivers of the different global climates? I haven’t been able to find any on his CV http://muller.lbl.gov/.
It seems that his testimony simply supports the claim that mean global temperature has been increasing since the Little Ice Age, which will come as no surprise to most of us who are sceptical of the speculative claim that it has been caused mainly be our use of fossil fuels.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Hi Yelder, I just read Scientific American (June 2011 issue) on Saturday, but have no other reference to hand.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2011 09:02:23 by graham.d »
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Hi graham.d, I doubt very much if you or anyone else will find any worthwhile research paper from Professor Muller showing what has been the major cause of any global warming or cooling during the past 200 years.

As Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University acknowledged back in April 2009, 
Quote
There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/.

The first sentence is the most important one, the third being simply waffle such as the IPCC uses to give the impression of being able to quantify that uncertainty.

I don't think that Professor Muller has changed that state of uncertainty about the processes and drivers of the different global climates (e.g. as defined by Koppen).

Quote
Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?
– nope, it’s Mother Nature doing her usual thing.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2011 10:31:54 by JP »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
As I understand it Muller has done related research and was asked to review the situation as it stands. He does not claim to be a world expert on the subject (though is well informed) but is well known for taking a critical view on physical theories and is a proven, strong proponent of scientific skepticism.
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Hi again graham.d, I had a read of Professor Muller’s testimony http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011 and two things stand out for a sceptic like me.

Muller said
Quote
According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then
I could be wrong but I think that is a rather distorted version of what the IPCC AR4 WG1 actually said. More correctly this was
Quote
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html#footnote12 which is somewhat different to what Muller testified. If you can point me to the part in AR4 WG1 where that bit about 1957 is stated then I’d appreciate it because I haven’t found it. Maybe Muller misinterpreted
Quote
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been measured directly with high precision since 1957
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/097.htm, which I believe was simply referring to the start of Keeling’s measurements http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.  Muller also omitted to mention that very important piece of IPCC speculation, “very likely”.

Muller also said
Quote
I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of climate issues .. I was asked what legislation could advance our knowledge of climate change. After some consideration, I felt that the creation of a Climate Advanced Research Project Agency, or Climate-ARPA, could help .. Climate-ARPA could be an organization that provides quick funding to worthwhile projects without regard to whether they support or challenge current understanding
. Now I wonder which organisations he has in mind to receive such funding - the University of California, Berkeley’s Earth Surface Temperature Project perhaps? After all, "money talks" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q.

As always, I’m happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood something.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
AR7 WG1 states right on the first page... "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[12] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

The report was prepared in 2007 so 2007 minus 50 years is 1957.

My only point in citing Muller was the SciAm interview and the point that he was thought likely, based on his previous critical views of established theories, to take a similar view on the Global Warming debate. Now that he has generally endorsed this view there are a some people trying to discredit him - including you it seems. Of course he would promote the idea of Berkeley getting funding but if that's all there was to it he would have told Congress what they wanted to hear, wouldn't he?

 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Hi again graham.d, I think that you might have misunderstood my
Quote
If you can point me to the part in AR4 WG1 where that bit about 1957 is stated then I’d appreciate it because I haven’t found it
That bit about 1957 is Muller’s statement that
Quote
According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then
not just a tiny piece about 1957. It’s the fact that Muller appears to me to have taken that enormous jump from a speculative “very likely” to a confident
Quote
the human component .. amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then
That’s just the kind of distortion of the WG1 scientific report that was presented in the SPM and the politicians involved love to see - the removal of uncertainty by any means possible.

Of course I may have missed some important item in AR4 WG1 so if you spot anything pleas let me know.

As for
Quote
some people trying to discredit him
I think that most of us sceptics are more concerned about trying to get to the facts rather than discrediting anyone. There are those who bring discredit upon themselves through distorting the facts, whether deliberately, through ignorance or accidentally.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2011 15:45:54 by Yelder »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
I think that most of us sceptics are more concerned about trying to get to the facts rather than discrediting anyone.


Unfortunately, that is certainly not true in most cases. Mostly I perceive a strong desire to discredit arguments. This desire is often not based on science except when used to defeat self-selected strawman arguments. It is my perception that people have made up their minds and then try to find arguments to support their preconceived ideas. In the USA and, to a slightly lesser extent in the UK, this debate has turned into a political right wing vs left wing argument. It is hard to see how that can be justified scientifically or on any "just trying to get the facts" basis. On almost every other subject, relatively ignorant people would accept the views of those renowned as experts in the field, the vast majority of whom seem to hold a consistant view on this issue. They may be wrong; the science does not give clear cut answers on these subjects.

It just seems to me that a cautious, less risky route, would be to encourage cooperation in reducing carbon emissions, which at the same time would elongate the period over which the world's oil reserves would last. Industrialised nations would not suffer in the medium term because the alternatives to high usage of fossil fuels involve the development of clever technology which they are best placed to take advantage from. That all this is politically difficult is why this has turned into a politically led debate. Why do you think whole nations have net views on this subject that seem in line with what is in their short term interest? This is not one of human nature's best traits I'm afraid.
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Hi again graham.d, yes, I agree with your first paragraph and acknowledge that there are too many on both sides of the discussion who simply try to win the argument rather than get to the facts. Regarding your second paragraph I do not agree that our use of fossil fuels presents a serious risk to the different global climates and do not support the notion that global economic growth should be hindered just because some people wish to apply the over-precautionary principle.

When I talk about economic growth I’m thinking about the developing economies, not the developed ones with their dependence upon our over-indulgence and waste, stemming from that other trait of many of us, greed.

Yes fossil fuels will run out eventually, but not for a very long time, when the energy companies can be depended upon to make available appropriate alternatives. There’s coal and natural gas galore still waiting to be extracted and put to good use, as long as it is done with minimal pollution and damage to the environment. Of course I do not consider that essential life-supporting substance CO2 to be a pollutant.

Clever technology exists already for extraction and clean use of fossil fuels but at the moment only nuclear is available as a sensible alternative (other than some niche applications for hydro, solar, wind, etc.).

I think that we need to be careful discussing these issues here because we may cause the thread to be locked as a consequence of straying off-question. That has happened before has it not.
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
assuming that today 95% CO2 is from nature & 5% from man, before fossil fuels it was 100% nature from volcanoes & forest fires which pollute & block the sun with particulates & allow some cooling from blocked sunlight
PBS has a documentary "Global Dimming" which is interesting
« Last Edit: 14/06/2011 16:05:42 by CZARCAR »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
It's interesting that those who advocate no need to reduce fossil carbon output are also prone to cherry picking the science to discredit it.

If the science is faulty, meaning we don't really have a good handle on cause and effect, isn't it incredibly cavalier to continue dumping vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere?

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Sure, there exist technologies reducing CO2, like modern cars. It's just that it's not enough. The problem is the way CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds, or thousand, of years depending on what importance you give to it.

If you accept that we contribute to it, also called 'man made or anthropogenic' which I actually expect you to do then the idea here is that we need to 'stop it'. Reducing it won't change a thing for the next hundred of years, and only slightly for the next couple of hundred of years. And while it's acting the tundra gets warm, introducing new CO2 in the atmosphere, with the methane coming as an added layer of acceleration.

And that's the problem. We're not used to this. Read a Jules Verne, and you'll see the way we imagine Nature. We expect us to be able to act, but only when it's at the 'front door', as that is when it 'threatens us'. But the man made portion won't disappear when we finally act. It will stay up there.

We don't have any Jules Verne solutions for scrubbing the atmosphere, and all our JV ideas of seeding the ocean etc, scrubbing it from CO2 and acidity are just that,Jule Verne. They may look sweet to politicians wanting to keep their 'jobs' and to those benefiting economically from a status quo but they won't work. It's a non-linear system, Earth.

As for a 'global cooling'?

Not as I know it. That doesn't mean that we can guarantee what way a non-linear system will tip. But so far all indications point to a warming, not a cooling.
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Hi Graham.d. you may recall me mentioning software engineer William Connolley in my comment of 11th June @ 14:31 (another of my comments that the moderator chose to hide from view). In following up on your comment about people trying to discredit Professor Muller I came across this staunch supporter of the CACC doctrine doing just that. His 5th April article “Muller is Rubbish” http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/04/muller_is_rubbish.php includes
Quote
Why then is he rubbish? Because he is still basically clueless about climate science
It isn’t usual for me to think along the same lines as Connolley but I was unable to seriously argue against much of what he wrote in that article.

Connolley's article also links to some others that make interesting reading, including Anthony Watts’ “Letter of response from Anthony Watts to Dr. Richard Muller testimony 3/31/2011” http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf.
 
« Last Edit: 13/06/2011 22:10:44 by Yelder »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
assuming that today 95% CO2 is from nature & 5% from man, before fossil fuels it was 100% nature from volcanoes & forest fires which pollute & block the sun with particulates & allow some cooling from blocked sunlight
PBS has a documentary "Global Cooling" which is interesting

In any given year, it may be that 5% of the total carbon cycle is due to fossil fuels.

But if we can assume that the "industrial" CO2 increases has been from 280ppm to 380ppm, (or from 0.028% to 0.038%) then that is a 35% total increase.

CO2 is produced in nature by all animals, as well as most bacteria, yeasts, and molds.  Volcanoes are just a minor component of the carbon cycle.

We put about 30 gigatons of CO2 into the air every year.  That is a LOT of carbon.

 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile

That is a LOT of carbon.


That is an understatement  ;)
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
"Global Dimming" program was about the week after 9/11 when US planes were grounded which resulted in a brighter, bluer sky & raised "pan evaporation rates" @ weather stations. Made me think if cars ran on clean, non-polluting  methane, the weather would be more violent due to global warming
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Hi CZARCAR, reference your comment of 13th June @ 18:40 can you provide a link to your source of 5% human emissions? IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 7.3 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html seems to present a different picture, with human emissions (fossil fuels, land use change) being 28GtC (102GtCO2) compared with natural emissions of 190.2GtC (697GtCO2), i.e. 4% from humans so your assumption isn’t far out (if the IPCC figures and my manipulation of them can be trusted).

Hi KliffordK, too many of us are forced to make assumptions (aka guesses) relating to climate change because of insufficient evidence or lack of clarity. Let me make the assumption (please correct me if I’m wrong) that when you say that
Quote
the "industrial" CO2 increases has been from 280ppm to 380ppm
you are implying that this CO2 increase is directly and totally due to our use of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. If my assumption is correct then is your assumption that we have cause a 35% increase flawed in any way? My understanding of those figures from the IPCC is that natural emissions account for 96% of that 35% increase. Of course we have to be a bit suspicious of those pre-industrial figures don’t we. After all, they come from air “trapped” in ice, which may not be a reliable record of the real atmospheric composition.

Your (and Geezer’s) concern about
Quote
30 gigatons of CO2 into the air every year.  That is a LOT of carbon
needs to be viewed in the context of natural emissions of CO2, which according to the IPCC amount to 697GtCO2 per year. Doesn’t that make natural emissions (87% of the total) look far larger by comparison? Also, let’s not overlook the IPCC statement that
Quote
Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20%
. On top of that the estimated concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than a mere 0.04% even during this claimed unusually warm period.

Of course, if global temperatures continue the trend of the past 12 years or even start to fall then might not CO2 levels even start falling, with the risk of positive feedback driving us towards another ice age, with more floods, more droughts, more hurricanes and tornadoes, more earth quakes and volcanoes, polar bears frozen to the ice sheets. Thank goodness that’s all wild speculation based upon unfounded assumptions.

While I was looking up information on the mean ocean temperature rise during the past 200 years I was reminded of Graham.d’s quote (at 14:40 yesterday) from the IPCC’s AR4
Quote
most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
and of Professor Muller’s interpretation of it
Quote
According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then
Those claims provide another example of conclusions drawn from an assumption that remains to be validated.

Looking at the GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif and HADCRUT http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif estimates of mean global temperature I can see no rising trend at all until about 1977 so what do you think Muller spotted from 1957 that I have missed. After all, he’s Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley so must know what he’s talking about, despite what people like Connolley http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/04/muller_is_rubbish.php, Watts http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf, Pielke Sr http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/01/pielke-sr-on-the-muller-testimony/, Tamino - Grant Foster? – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/richard-muller-love-fest/, etc. say.
 

Post by Peter Ridley under another name click to view.

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Shrunk
When JP, yor_on, Geezer and graham.d. started discussing the politicisation of CO2 on 8th & 9th June I mentioned Lord Lawson (my comment of 11th June @ 14:31 - for some reason hidden by the moderator  [:(!]). Lawson’s 11th June article “A fatuous obsession: The Coalition's absurd energy policy is damaging industry and adding hundreds of pounds to every family's fuel bills” is well worth reading. He says
Quote
The first, as more and more eminent scientists are finding the courage to point out (the most recent being the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University), is that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic one — of global warming at all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002333/Nigel-Lawson-says-Coalitions-absurd-energy-policy-damaging-industry-adding-hundreds-pounds-familys-fuel-bills.html#ixzz1PHOoKHWR.

I’m a bit puzzled by Lawson’s
Quote
the most recent being .. Professor William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, because he has been presenting his sceptical arguments for at least a couple of years. It seems that his most recent article was “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases: The dubious science of the climate crusaders” http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases in which he says
Quote
I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims
  Happer made a statement on climate change before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in February 2009 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42 part of which can be seen at http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/william-happer-wants-to-party-like-its-79999999-bc (don’t be fooled by the date of July 10, 2002 as it is just a hang-over from one of his earlier statements probably due to re-using the same document - http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Homeland_Security_National_Labs.asp.

Talking about
Quote
eminent scientists .. point out .. that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic one
reminds me of others like Happer. While searching for a link between Grant Foster and Tamino I came across “Dog Brothers Public Forum” http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1454.0 which may find of interest as it mentions numerous scientists who converted from supporters to deniers of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis, including paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa, environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, and paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa. It also mentions Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski who Pete Ridley talked about on his “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24442;sa=showPosts.
 
There's also an interesting comment about
Quote
Global Warming Ruled a Religion by British Judge

Another very interesting article published by the SPPI on 10th June “Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science?” http://sppiblog.org/news/lindzen-choi-%E2%80%98special-treatment%E2%80%99-is-peer-review-biased-against-nonalarmist-climate-science was drawn to my attention yesterday. It also includes a reference to Happer but more importantly describes the sort of treatment that sceptical scientists are subjected to when submitting papers for publication, just as the Climategate E-mails indicated. The comment about Happer said
Quote
Attachment2.pdf. This attachment begins with what we regard as a libelous description of our choice of reviewers. Will Happer, though a physicist, was in charge of research at DOE including pioneering climate research. Moreover, he has, in fact, published professionally on atmospheric turbulence. He is also a member of the NAS
.

The article is well worth reading – enjoy.

There’s also an interesting article “Politicization of Climate Change & CO2” http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/p/sundry-papers.html which originally appeared on The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition site http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2011 21:15:54 by peppercorn »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Yelder - I think it would be best if we avoided this thread becoming a repository for blog postings by politicians and interested by-standers.  We have all agreed during this thread that the issue of climate change is highly politically charged and that sectarian "lines in the sand" have been drawn by both sides.  Let us try to keep to scientific questions, answers, and refutations and allow those who wish to read further to find those articles for themselves.

The OP was "Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?" - let's leave the question of Prof Muller's rectitude and other multi-lateral mudslinging and try and advance the scientific debate on the original question. 

Thanks - imatfaal/matthew
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Hi Imatfaal, I have no problem with that provided everyone else is encouraged to do the same.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Hi Imatfaal, I have no problem with that provided everyone else is encouraged to do the same.

And to that end it has been shrunk.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2011 21:17:39 by peppercorn »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums