UN Claims Record-Breaking Extreme Weather

Kevin Scharfenberg said:
Uhm well, Michael Crichton, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, George Will, the WSJ editorial page, just to name a few. All have very large microphones, and have used them to spout disinformation that has been debunked time and again, some of which we're seeing in this thread.
Click to expand...

And what to you think the GP (general public) will believe? The wackos that say everything is caused by man made Global Warming or the wackos that say it is all a scam. Al Gore stretching "truth" has done more to convince the GP that man made Global Warming is a scam than talk radio will ever do.

As I said before, it is pointless to argue about Global Warming. We all know that pollution is bad. Finding cost effective ways to reduce pollution is something that we all need to do regardless of Global Warming.
 
In response to me saying that man-made CO2 only accounted for 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere Kevin said...

"Perhaps this is so, but there is considerable evidence out there (if you would care to look) that this small percent makes a huge difference. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if your glass of water was actually composed of 97% H2O and 3% arsenic, now would you?"

What???? That analogy is wrong on so many different levels that I don't even know what to say. This small percent makes a huge difference???? It's 3%. It has a numerical value. We all understand. A proper analogy would be a glass with 97% bottled water and 3% tap water, and in that case, no, I certainly wouldn't mind drinking it. Talk about apples to oranges.

Do you honestly believe that a handful of conservative talk radio hosts have the same size audience and influence as a former vice president with a movie, dozens of celebrities, the United Nations, and dozens of tv shows on respected networks such as National Geographic and The Weather Channel. Come on. We both know that's not true.
 
OK Kevin, here is an abstract on a scientific paper on how the magnetic fields have a significant effect on the earth's climate. The paper was published in the American Geophysical Union. I don't know how you could claim that this has been shown "time and time again to be rejected as causes". Do you have any reputable evidence to support that?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMGP51B..02F

And here is an article from NASA on how solar flares dramatically influence the earth's climate. Once again, I have no idea how you can say that these things do not influence climate. Here is a quote from the article...
"The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2004/2004080217383.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fplowman said:
Im sorry John. I thought "Carbon Credits" were common knowledge among folks.

Heres a Wikepedia link I easily Googled.. im sure there is more information for those interested if you Google it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit
Click to expand...

I am aware of the concept of carbon credits. Two comments: First, I would reiterate that the U.S., under pressure from the oil companies and car companies who believed it would hurt their bottom lines, rejected participation in the Kyoto Protocol. This observation applies to both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and is probably a good example of how money eclipses party ideology. (I'll stop there so I don't run afoul of the "no politics" rule.) Second, I am not completely sold on the carbon credits idea, because while it does create an incentive for companies to reduce their polution (so they can sell their carbon credits), it also lets other companies avoid doing so by purchasing the credits. So I have mixed feelings about it. The bottom line on the Kyoto Protocol, IMHO, is that it did not go far enough to reverse the portion of global warming that is a result of human activity, but it was better than nothing, and we would have been better off had the U.S. joined it. But we didn't, and pressures from corporations that feared its economic impact were a major reason.
 
Mike Smith wrote:

"If you go to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ and page down you will see that Tuesday, Aug. 7, Hansen revised his U.S. temperature graph to conform to the numbers I linked to earlier from climateaudit.org (which is currently down). Hansen's enlarged graph is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif . "

I haven't had time to study these pages completely, but since you're lecturing about the scientific method, this might be a good time to remind you the science undergoes constant revision and modification as new information becomes available. If anyone is expecting all results ever written by the AGW side to never be modified in any way, and then throw out their entire efforts when any correction is ever made, they are fundamentally ignorant about the scientific process or are just being plain dishonest.

On the other hand, the deniers side has been backpeddling like mad the last few years, first saying there was no GW at all, then that there is GW but it's not anthropogenic, and now saying there is AGW but it's "no big deal". Yet the same people who expect perfection from the AGW side give the deniers a free pass on absolutely ridiculous past statements and a cowardice in publishing their "findings", relying on newspaper articles and blog comments. Sad really.

Funny thing is a quick browse of the data on Mike's NASA site and related links reveals marked and obvious warming in the past 100 years of the climate record globally from multiple sources, and not just the USHCN, as I've been stating. This site and its links seem to do nothing but bolster my case. Mike, are you willing to go on the record here and now that the idea the globe is currently undergoing significant warming is a hoax? I'd love to see that in writing.

"And, based on the USHCN surveys done so far (www.surfacestations.org, which is also down), it appears obvious that there is a significant warm bias in that data set based on the MMTS siting. So, it is reasonable to conclude the numbers for the last 10 or 15 years may have to be revised downward still."

Cant say much since the site is down, but I'll choose to wait to actually see a published study before making such an assumption and jumping to such conclusions. i.e., I'll wait to let the scientific method run its course. (Guess it's my turn to lecture...lmao.)

"The fact that the U.S. graph is so unremarkable, given the warm bias in recent years' measurements, should be a big yellow "caution" sign."

Caution signs are all good, but throwing out everything as a hoax based on this is really reaching. Again, US =/= world, and we're talking about global climate change here.

"I am not an expert in polar ice. However, research I have read says Antarctic ice is growing and that Greenland's ice, while melting on the edges, is actually getting thicker in the middle and growing in net mass."

My understanding is this is expected phenomena, with thickening ice at the center of some land masses but significant reduction in sea ice, which is also being observed. Again, all in the literature if you wish to have a look. It's worth noting the Arctic sea ice is reaching its most reduced levels in recorded history, such that oil exploration (naturally) is possible for the first time ever in the high latitudes above Russia.

"When it is contended that solar flares, etc., "cannot" be the cause of the observed warming, those contentions are largely based on the IPCC's models. As I posted earlier, some the IPCC's strongest supporters are now backing away from those models."

Of course the models aren't perfect, and no one is claiming they are, but some choose to hold them to an unreasonably high standard, so there's really no point in arguing it. Again, submit your contentions to the journals, or at least point me to the articles that exist.

"The Financial Times of London, certainly no fan of President Bush, a supporter of carbon taxes, etc., wrote a blistering article about the IPCC just last week. It is here: www.ft.com/cms/s/39463a34-40a3-11dc-9d0c-0000779fd2ac.html ."

It's worth noted this is an editorial written by a partisan, not a scientist, and has been effectively responded to here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/transparency-of-the-ipcc-process-2/#more-463

"Experiments are conducted to test the hypothesis. This would be the global trend upward trend in temperatures (now discredited in the U.S. for reasons cited above; elsewhere ???), realistic pastcast model results (not achieved), model accurately models current climate (not achieved) and consistent forecast model results (not achieved). "

Actually your paranthetical remarks are flat wrong, and I'm not relying on simply the IPCC documents in saying that. The major recent upward trend in the global temperature record has not been discredited, and reasonable pastcasts and accurate current climate models have been achieved, but since you've made up your mind to dismiss them out-of-hand, I'm just wasting my time referring you to the literature. I invite you to submit to a peer-reviewed journal your rejection of these results so I can have a look, of course.

Mike Gribble: your link to the AGU abstract appears to be to a conference abstract, which I don't believe is peer-reviewed. But no one is claiming there is NO impact on global climate from solar cycles. What I'm saying is that actually observed solar cycles cannot explain the magnitude of the warming actually observed, according to everything we can gather to this point. I can't access the full text so not a lot else I can say about the abstract.

Won't be able to follow this thread the next few days due to some holiday time (stormtrack is not on my reading list while out having fun!) :-) But I don't think it matters, since I find these things have little history in actually changing people's minds. The upshot on what I'm saying is that it's clear there is a global upward trend in temperature the last ~100 years, which certainly seems to be accelerating, and there are numerous sources to back it up. But the attempts to use silly quotes in popular media articles, or poke holes in one of the myriad of data sources to try to impugn ALL the data, are dishonest.
 
The Associated Press put out an article blaming the tornado in New York on global warming. Of course they did. I'm surprised it took this long.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QTQ8180&show_article=1
Some ass clown from NASA tries to explain how increased water vapor and higher temperatures from global warming cause these stronger storms. Alright buddy. I'll play along with his global warming theory. Mid lattitude extratropical cyclones are driven by the jet stream/temperature contrasts (temperature contrasts cause the jet stream for those of you who may not know). Global warming has caused more warming at the poles than at the equator, hence decreasing the temperature contrast in the mid latitudes and decreasing the strength of the jet stream on average. This means there are weaker extratropical cyclones which translates into weaker storms. I guess he just forgot to mention that part of the theory.



The Kyoto Protocol is a joke, and as a political science major fresh out of school I have had a lot of experience with what all was involved the the Kyoto Protocol. China, India, and other developing countries could pollute all day long, but the U.S. would have had strict regulations. Why in the hell would we sign up to something that says all these other countries that are major polluters can keep doing the same thing, but we have to change. The Kyoto Protocol was UNANIMOUSLY voted agains in the U.S. Senate. That is unheard of. Everybody knew it was a joke. It was an attempt by other countries to equal the economic playing field. Clinton himself even said it was "fatally flawed".

I am all about cutting back on pollution, but other countries need to get on board too. When you look at pollution per unit of GDP, the US does a very good job. We get labeled as the world's biggest polluter because we produce so much more than all the other countries. Measuring pollution per unit of GDP is much more equitable than measuring with total output. Why should we be punished for being successful? That is what every other country is trying to do. Of course the UN is going to focus in on total output. The UN is made up of little countries that are pursuing their own agenda and that agenda typically conflicts with ours.
 
Kevin said...
"But no one is claiming there is NO impact on global climate from solar cycles. What I'm saying is that actually observed solar cycles cannot explain the magnitude of the warming actually observed, according to everything we can gather to this point."

I actually agree with you here. It is obvious, as the article states, that solar activity can not account for more than a small portion of the warming over the last 30 years. That is the point that I have been trying to make. No one thing has a dramatic influence on the earth's climate IMO. Not CO2, not magnetic fields, not solar activity, etc. Numerous things all exert a small influence on the earth's climate and they are so interelated and complex that it is simply not possible to attribute the current warming to man-made CO2 emissions. Other things such as solar activity, magnetic fields, precipitation trends, ocean currents, clouds, ice sheets, other gases in the atmosphere, and countless other things all weild influence on the earth's climate, yet they are pushed aside the by the global warming alarmists. They say with total certainty that our 3% contribution of CO2 is the culprit. The truth is IMO that we simply don't know. I believe that we probably have had a fractional impact with pollution, but I don't believe it is going to be catastrophic and I definitely don't believe that we are solely to blame for the slight rise in temperature (we are talking about the temperature going up a few tenths of a degree over the last 100 years). The earth's climate has warmed and cooled for billions of years and I fail to see how this cycle, which is no warmer than flucuations in the past, is some how extraordinary and catastrophic. That is premature and absurd IMO. I get real tired of the models also. There isn't one ounce of proof that any of these global climate models are even somewhat accurate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Gribble said:
The Kyoto Protocol is a joke, and as a political science major fresh out of school I have had a lot of experience with what all was involved the the Kyoto Protocol. China, India, and other developing countries could pollute all day long, but the U.S. would have had strict regulations. Why in the hell would we sign up to something that says all these other countries that are major polluters can keep doing the same thing, but we have to change. The Kyoto Protocol was UNANIMOUSLY voted agains in the U.S. Senate. That is unheard of. Everybody knew it was a joke. It was an attempt by other countries to equal the economic playing field. Clinton himself even said it was "fatally flawed".

I am all about cutting back on pollution, but other countries need to get on board too. When you look at pollution per unit of GDP, the US does a very good job.
Click to expand...

Actually, the U.S. Senate never voted on the Kyoto Protocol:

Quoting from http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp

"Q. Did the U.S. Senate vote against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?
A. No. The protocol has never been submitted to the senate for ratification. The Bush administration has referred to a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution, which registered views on some aspects of protocol negotiations. The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: "It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees ... that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real.... Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently... [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer." "


On Michael's other point quoted above, it all depends how you measure pollution. On a per-capita basis, the U.S. is the biggest polluter. If the per capita pollution rate were the same in India and China, with their populations of over a billion each, there would be far greater pollution and global warming. The challenge is to find ways to get industrialized countries like the U.S. to maintain a high standard of living while reducing pollution, and for countries like China and India to industrialize without creating the kind of per-capita (or, once they industrialize, GDP-relative) pollution created when Western countries industrialized. Of course each group wants to point the finger and insist that the other does all the adjusting, but to reduce the human contribution to global warming both will have to change.

To be clear - I want to maintain a high standard of living, but I understand that may mean things like putting greater resources into development of renewable energy (we are vastly underutilizing wind energy, for example), and giving up the notion that we have a "right" to drive around in cars that get 10 or 15 miles per gallon. And in response to earlier comments, I agree that too much of it is put on the individual (i.e. the emisssions inspections that Fred mentioned) and not enough on the corporations (look at how the auto companies are currently trying to water down the proposed mileage standards), but some change will be needed of everyone. And as others have said, there are other benefits to reducing pollution besides reducing the human contribution to global warming.
 
John said...
"Actually, the U.S. Senate never voted on the Kyoto Protocol"


Uhh, yeah they did vote on it John. You are a little confused here and your source is less than truthful to say the least. The Senate voting on the Kyoto Protocol and it being submitted for ratification are two totally different things. I never said anything about ratification. The Senate voting on this was their way of shooting down Kyoto beacause the Senate can't submit any treaties for ratification. Only the President can make foreign policy. Here is a quote from Wikipedia, which I am betting is a little more accurate than your pro-global warming website. Notice in the quote that the Senate Unanimously voted against this.


"On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[65][66] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".

If you want to see how big of a joke the Kyoto Protocol is, here is the link to the Wikipedia page on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
China surpassed the U.S. in total greenhouse gas emissions in late 2006 according to Wikipedia, so they can't label us the biggest polluter anymore. I didn't even realize that until I read the article.
The gest of the Kyoto Protocol is that we have to improve emission standards by more than 5% of 1990 levels, but China, India, and every other country in the world that isn't as "developed" as us doesn't have to do anything. The reason that they don't have to do anything is because that they didn't have there chance to pollute as much as us yet, so they shouldn't have to curb their pollution. Give me a frickin break. This is nothing but underveloped countries, which are the dominant force at the U.N., trying to bully around developed countries like the U.S. and Europeans. Like I said before, if you measure pollution per unit of GDP, which is the only equitable way to do it, then the U.S. is one of the best in the world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Farley said:
I am aware of the concept of carbon credits. Two comments: First, I would reiterate that the U.S., under pressure from the oil companies and car companies who believed it would hurt their bottom lines, rejected participation in the Kyoto Protocol. This observation applies to both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and is probably a good example of how money eclipses party ideology. (I'll stop there so I don't run afoul of the "no politics" rule.) Second, I am not completely sold on the carbon credits idea, because while it does create an incentive for companies to reduce their polution (so they can sell their carbon credits), it also lets other companies avoid doing so by purchasing the credits. So I have mixed feelings about it. The bottom line on the Kyoto Protocol, IMHO, is that it did not go far enough to reverse the portion of global warming that is a result of human activity, but it was better than nothing, and we would have been better off had the U.S. joined it. But we didn't, and pressures from corporations that feared its economic impact were a major reason.
Click to expand...

Hey John :), My intent was to show the parallel between BIG Business and the global warming "Craze". Its now BIG Business. I think the evidence is undeniable. In addition the keynote speaker at this years convention where you and I sat together touched on this somewhat. I find William Gray as a very credible authority on the subject. In my opinion his fear of retribution was not understated.
 
Michael Gribble said:
John said...
Here is a quote from Wikipedia, which I am betting is a little more accurate than your pro-global warming website. Notice in the quote that the Senate Unanimously voted against this.


"On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[65][66] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".


. . . China surpassed the U.S. in total greenhouse gas emissions in late 2006 according to Wikipedia, so they can't label us the biggest polluter anymore. I didn't even realize that until I read the article.
Click to expand...

I wrote a long response to this when it was first posted, but it seems to have gotten lost in cyberspace, as it never appeared on this thread.

3 points, briefly. First, the above quote does not amount to a vote against the Kyoto Protocol. Some who voted for the resolution were against the whole idea, but others wanted changes that would have bound the developing countries to some targets. Trying to change something is not the same as trying to block it entirely.

Second, I already said the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate, in part because it did not bind developing coutries to any pollution limits. But I still think something would have been better than nothing.

Third, of course China pollutes more than the United States - it has 4 times as many people.

The key to any hope of reducing the human-induced portion of global warming is to do two things simultaneously - reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses in industrialized countries like the U.S., and find ways for developing countries to industrialize with lesser levels of greenhouse gas emissions. This will require some adjustment in both, but the sacrifices - e.g. giving up driving around in vehicles that get 10-15 miles per gallon - will be small compared to the potential costs of global warming. The cost of the potential sea level rise alone would dwarf the costs of preventive adjustments. And, as others have said, if it turns out that the current predictions are too pessimistic, there are other benefits to reducing pollution besides reducing the human contribution to global warming.

Hopefully my post will go through this time.
 
I mentioned that China passed the U.S. in emissions for several reasons, one was just to let everybody know (because I didn't know until I read that article) that when people say "the U.S. is the biggest polluter" that it is no longer true. It is also relevenat because it shows how unbelieveably ridiculous the Kyoto Protocol was. Under that treaty the world's largest polluter doesn't even have to change anything. And it is also important because, yeah the Chinese may have more people, but that has nothing to do with the equation. Pollution should be measured per unit of GDP if you really want an equitable assesment of how environmentally friendly a country is. We produce way more than China. I don't know the exact GDP figures, but we roughly produce 33% more than them with the same amount of pollution(it gets a little fuzzier when you use PPP, but it's still about the same).

On the Senate vote issue, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Trying to change something is not the same as trying to block it entirely". The Senate can't make any changes to an international treaty that was drafted at the U.N. As the Wikipedia article states, the Kyoto Protocol was all but formally done. Everybody knew what was in it and it wasn't going to change on the floor of the Senate. They knew what was in the Kyoto Protocol and they flat out rejected it. It wasn't coincidence that they had this vote right after the Kyoto Protocol was finished.

I agree that something is better than nothing, but we loose all negotiating power with the "developing" countries if we sign ourselves up to a treaty that ties our hands and leaves theirs free. We all do need to curb pollution, but we need to be smart about it if we want real results and I don't see real results coming without China, India, and all the other "developing" countries on board.
 
Climate 101

I'm not a weather professional, or a storm chaser. I have, however, done a little digging into global warming. It seems a few folk on this site haven't. Y'all are into weather. Climate is something else all together. Let me throw up a few charts.

700px-Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Here we have the last 25 years. Aside from a certain inherent randomness, there are four visible effects. El-Nino/La Nina can cause a swing around nearly a half degree.

We have a small volcanic eruption, which causes significant global dimming (particles blocking sunlight). This is no where near as severe as the Year Without a Summer, but was strong enough to suppress the effects of a small El Nino. It reflects how releasing particles into the air can cause cooling, and note human factories release cooling particles as well as warming greenhouse gasses. This could change. As developing countries such as India and China install stack scrubbers to protect the health of their populations, a significant cooling factor might get removed from the climate picture.

If one looks at the red 5 year rolling averages, many of the random and short term effects are averaged out, and one sees the 11 year sunspot cycle. Every 11 years or so, the sun slowly gets a bit stronger, then weaker again. The swing is about 0.1 degrees. This one is fairly predictable.

Behind all that, one can see an over all upward trend. This is commonly attributed to greenhouse gasses. Naked eyeball, it looks like about .4 degrees in 25 years.

700px-65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.png

Stepping way back in time, one can look at the last 65 million years. Again, one can see a number of effects.

If the poles thaw or freeze, there is a big jump, about four degrees.

The Milankovitch Cycles reflect predictable changes in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt. Jupiter and Saturn tug on the orbit. Earth, like a gyroscope, wobbles. These shifts effect climate in the very long term, with periods on the order of 10,000 years. These cycles drive the ice ages. One can see the ice ages coming and going rapidly in the last several million years.

But while the Milankovitch Cycles are fairly predictable, the effect varies depending on the base temperature of the planet. If a slight cooling caused by the cycles produces glaciers, the glaciers reflect light back into space, resulting in more cooling, and more glaciers. Thus, the effect of the Milankovitch Cycles is amplified by the possibility of glaciers. Note the temperatures vary much more in the last several million years than when the temperature is warm enough to block glaciation.

We also have the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). While there is still some disagreement, the common theory is that a warming planet caused the sudden release of greenhouse gasses from the oceans and tundra, causing a sudden two degree rise. This was sufficient to cause the mass extinction at the Paleocene Eocene era boundary.

In the long term, one can see temperatures rising from 65 million years ago to 50 million years ago, then dropping. There are multiple theories on that one, or perhaps several mechanisms working at the same time. When continents move to block ocean currents from reaching the poles, you can get ice caps and thus cooling. As the sun moves in and out of galactic arms of the galaxy, cosmic ray intensity changes, and cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, again causing light to be reflected into space. As mountain chains rise, and rain falls, the erosion process absorbs carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Thus, a collision of large land masses, resulting in new mountains, can also cause cooling.

In short, there is lots of stuff going on. What makes me nervous is that we are currently only a few degrees below the point where the Antarctic thaws. If we get two degrees warmer, we could get 4 more degrees warmer. The sudden 2 degree C shift at the PETM was sufficient to cause a major extinction. What would a 6 degree C shift do?

Anyway, if y'all are truly curious, Real Climate digs into the climate question much as you guys chase storms. I'd go there to get a decent intro to the basics and keep up with the propaganda wars being fought in the public press.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I think we all realize that climate change/fluctuation is a natural occurrence of the earth, and there's too little historical data and evidence to prove that we (man) are destroying the planet and the world's coming to an end in 80 years or whatever. Who's to say that temps weren't much warmer 300/400/500 years ago? Who's to say that temps won't be cooler 10/20 years from now? We all know that models give us a good idea of what could happen days in advance (not years), but the bottom line is the future cannot be predicted, so when I see models being thrown out to forecast climate change 100 years into the future, I can't help but to laugh. I'm not bought on the man-made global warming crisis, but at the same time.....why not improve pollution emissions regardless, ya' know? If anything, cutting down on the "smog" would improve quality of life for us all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top