WUWT readers surely recall this most often quoted prediction about snow. From the Independent’s most cited article: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past by Charles Onians:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
It seems despite the sage advice from that East Anglia CRU scientist, a new record for snowfall has been set for the month of December.
From the Rutgers University Snow Lab, we have this graph for the Northern Hemisphere for all months of December. December 2012 was a clear winner.
![nhland12[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nhland121.png?quality=75)
Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
Increased evaporation combined with more heat loss in the Arctic due to a record low amount of Arctic sea ice is the likely cause.The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 was a big factor in this.
To be fair though, lets look at all the data for all months. The 70’s were peak years, so was 1993 (post Pinatubo eruption) as was the winter of 2002/2003.
![anom_nhland[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/anom_nhland1.gif)
Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
While we surely don’t have a new annual snow record yet, the winter is not yet over and it remains a possibility. We’ll revisit this come spring.
h/t to Pierre Gosselin via Marc Morano
@richardscourtney
how have I misrepresented you by directly quoting you? How can that be?
OK let me put it in my own words…..Correct me if I am wrong here (Im sure you will)
1. You think it is difficult to prove if humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.
2. You say the warming from increased CO2 is so small it is not worth considering or measurable.
3. You seem to think there is no evidence at all that AGW is real or provable.
I say if you do hold these views you are the extremist (one with extreme views) here and that few of the people who run this site, if any would agree with you.
Ed says:
January 5, 2013 at 2:53 pm
D Böehm
By recent warming, I mean in the last 100 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you are going to go back 100 yrs (The warming coming out of the Little Ice Age) then go with this graph or better yet with this graph
I see that the level of vitriol has increased over the last few posts. This is completely unfair, I have stated that I would like the idea that AGW to be refuted, just like every other right thinking human being, I really do. I am confident The posters here would like the same thing. The trouble is I have described the mechanism whereby humans contribute to global warming.
DB the four points are not conjecture. They are facts. So much so that one point that you attempt to refute, you do the opposite and provide evidence that supports it (more CO2 in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect). Even at the very extreme of the graph, at 500 ppm there is still an increase in greenhouse effect. As we are in the 400 ppm concentration there is still in for an increase in greenhouse effect.
So once more we have agreement and their no need for me to reassess the process that underpins AGW.
Further down that same post you provide an unsourced graph that shows humans are contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere. So once again you have failed to show one of the four facts is incorrect, but actually supplied evidence is correct. Again no need to reassess the process that under pins AGW.
Davidmhoffer, you have also failed to show the four facts are incorrect. So no need to respond.
Richard, I am also not a bot either (you are into conspiracies). What you have done is come to a different conclusion about the four facts that we both agree with. For that you call me names. If you change your mind on the four facts, let me know.
Tobyglyn, Richard has already agreed that all four facts are correct. What is your point? Your orher point about the climate is always changing is valid, but I fear it is changing too fast and in a direction I don’t like.
Gail if you cannot provide a reason why the four facts are incorrect, please do ignore me. You have nothing to contribute.
Ed you claim in capital letter there has been no recent warming. My question to you is, how far do you have to go to get a statistically significant answer to question is the earth heating up? Once you establish that, tell me what the answer is.
Ron, nothing else to contribute but mere speculation as to my age. When you have evidence that disproves the four facts let me know.
Gail, I fail to see your point regarding photosynthesis. Which of the four facts is that supposed to disprove?
Well there has been a lot of discussion here regarding the facts underpinning the phenomena of AGW, unfortunately NO ONE has produced a piece of evidence to show the facts are incorrect. I realise this is frustrating for a lot of posters, but rather than channel the frustration into vitriol, use that energy to disprove the facts. I am not doing this to troll, I would like a realistic response that would put my mind at ease.
@richardscourtney says:
>I am responding to your post at January 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm.
Yeah obviously got crossposts going. Understood – I am up to date.
>Firstly, I did misunderstand the conversation between you and Gail, and I apologise to each of you for that.
I was not confused – not to worry. I have actually read that long paper before perhaps two years ago and found it very interesting. He has thought about it quite deeply. There is also a guy in E Europe who has looks at the methods of determining the ice-bound air pocket gas ratios. It one and the same guy? As a person who measures gas ratios professionally it seems to me the methods have really large error bands, all systematic errors considered.
>He was a personal friend with whom I collaborated for decades prior to his death so I tend to jump to his defence.
His work is defensible!
>Your point about the sequestration and emission of CO2 by seasonality of ice is interesting. I have given it little thought but – given my work on the carbon cycle – it interests me. Quantifying the effect may be difficult because seasonal ice volume is very difficult to determine with determined accuracy and precision. Area is indicated by satellite observations but not volume.
Well this should turn into a decent presentation for public discussion right here on WUWT. It is speculative to begin with – but I put some numbers togther and it looks like it is very important. Ian McQueen (above) has been in correspondence with me today about it and we are all interested. He rapidly found out ‘who I was’ – I am not hiding here, just not attracting more attention than necessary. I think the three of us have enough understanding to put together an article with realistic numbers. I will outline one possible implication if I am correct:
Suppose CO2 varies a lot because of ice melting or freezing has a strong influence on the local temperature. In NH summer when the Earth is farthest from the Sun, it still gets warm even though the CO2 drops quite measurably. In winter, the CO2 goes way up and the winter weather should be moderated, right? Detectably? Well, I don’t think so, but it is a putative effect. Perhaps one day it will be discernable – who knows.
If there were a tropospheric hot spot (my other interest) the change in CO2 should show a change in the temperature of that spot. Unfortunately it is not there so there is no way to detect the ‘greenhouse effect’ precisely in the tropics using this annual variation. Perhaps there is an atmospheric opacity method a-la-Dr M, not sure.
As you know there is an annual variation in sea ice at opposite ends of the Earth. CO2 concentration also varies quite a bit. I was surprised when I first found out what the ‘normal range’ is. Well, is that variation created by the formation or melting of sea ice and land snow and freezing muskeg and ‘impermafrost’? I think there is as much or more ice in the Tiaga than there is in the Arctic Ocean. In Mongolia the freeze goes down 9 feet over perhaps 1 million sq km. Sibeia is much larger. Water pipes have to be 10 feet down not to freeze. At 24 ft there is permafrost. If the permafrost is melting, that fresh water is absorbing a heck of a lot of CO2. As Ian points out, ice has no gases in it at all, the 10-20 nanometres disregarded as irrelevant.
>Please let me know if I can help with your investigation, and I look forward to your saying what you can or cannot eventually conclude about the issue.
I think we should start a crowd-sourced article on the subject. If water/ice CO2 variation is large, and missing from the models estimating CO2 and also melting ice, it is a serious contribution to the understanding of future CO2, deglaciation and estimates of warming. All we need is a separate thread and moderation to keep out the irrelevant stuff as per above. What do you say Richard, Ian and Anthony? Who else can contribute? I have a couple of friends with relevant skills. [I am talking about you, Prof PL.] Obviously it will lead to a journal article.
Ed says:
January 5, 2013 at 3:50 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ed,
When you’ve dug a hole for yourself, there’s very little benefit to pulling the dirt in over your head. You’d be better of to apologize.
Ed:
Your offensive trolling is becoming tiresome. Frankly, you paid trolls are beneath contempt.
The latest of your outrageous and egregious posts is at January 5, 2013 at 3:50 pm and again misrepresents me.
I have clearly and unambiguously stated my understandings of the issues. And I do not accept that you are incapable of reading. So, I think you are being deliberately egregious when you say what you assert it “seems I think”. Those assertions are purely your misrepresentations.
Others can see the truth of these matters so there is no need for me to repeat them yet again. I merely again point to my post at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am which states my views.
In addition to again misrepresenting me,
your latest piece of flaming accuses me of being an “extremist”. If by that you mean I adhere rigidly to the scientific method and I adamantly refuse to accept pseudoscience then, yes, I am an “extremist”.
I still await your apology.
And I trust that others will understand my refusal to answer any more of your posts until I get it: otherwise you will gain your pay simply by iterating your misrepresentations of me.
Richard
Ed says:
“By recent warming, I mean in the last 100 years.”
OK then. I suspect you are moving the goal posts, but no matter. You do understand now that global warming has stopped over the most recent decade. Clearly, CO2 does not have the claimed global warming effect.
And once again you are mis-quoting what was written. As a matter of fact, there is no empirical, testable, falsifiable scientific evidence measuring AGW. If AGW cannot be measured, it is only a conjecture. As Prof Richard Lindzen writes, CO2 “should” cause some warming. That is based on radiative physics, but since there are no empirical measurements of AGW, it is entirely possible that it’s minuscule forcing could be offset by various second- and first-order forcings.
Finally, as I have written many, many times: AGW probably exists. However, there is no evidence per the scientific method that measures the extent of AGW. Since it is too small to be measured, AGW can and should be disregarded. It is making a mountain out of a molehill by all the wild eyed arm-waving over a tiny, third-order, inconsequential forcing. To the extent that it exists, AGW simply does not matter. It only matters because the AGW scare generates $Billions in cash grants every year.
You label that point of view as “extremist”. Plenty of people labeled Albert Einstein with similar pejoratives. They turned out to be ignorant, because science does not care about pejoratives; only facts and measurable, verifiable observations matter — and those scientific facts and observations support the hypothesis that AGW is too insignificant to matter.
This is richard courtney saying this nonsense? What idiocy.. What rise in CO2 ? When? We have 10 times less than we had last ice age. All anyone with a brain will say is that temps have gone up 5 degrees since LIA. That’s it. The sun is the key factor not human fleas!!
Human contribution miniscule. No warming in 16 years. I think that about does it.
Lower up:
In your long post at January 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm you say to me
I am NOT into conspiracy theories. Bots exist and are deployed against WUWT. And I was not alone in reading your posts as being suggestive of the products of a bot; e.g. the post by Ron Richey at January 5, 2013 at 2:34 pm says
My ‘name calling’ as you put it was rather tame compared to that – I think – reasonable assessment by Ron Richey.
Indeed, my post at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am explained to you why your “four facts” provide no cause for concern. The available evidence – some of which I gave you – clearly demonstrates how and why your “four facts” provide no cause for concern but you have ignored that and have repeatedly mumbled on as though your “four facts” had importance.
When the evidence changes then I change my view. When given the evidence you ignore it.
However, you are better than Ed. When he is given the evidence he misrepresents it and tries to ‘shoot the messenger’.
Ho, hum. As Gail rightly says, one has to deal with trolls (sigh).
Richard
DavidG:
re your post at January 5, 2013 at 4:51 pm says
Please be explicit. What have I said which you think is “nonsense” and “idiocy”?
Richard
Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm
…..Gail, I fail to see your point regarding photosynthesis. Which of the four facts is that supposed to disprove?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUH? Are you up to speed at all? CO2 cycles from the air through various sinks. Photosynthesis is one of the major sinks.
So the C13/C12 ratio change is used to indict fossil fuel as the cause of the ASSUMED accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The differences in up take of C13 by C3 plants and C4 plants and the major changes in the earth’s biosphere, as well as the above information places large question marks around the C13/C12 ratio being conclusive proof.
Other information on the ASSUMPTION that CO2 has accumulated in the air.
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review – 2nd revised edition
by Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V. (1992) published in Norsk Polarinstitutt [Norwegian Polar Institute] Meddelelser [Letters], Vol. 119, 76 pp.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski: The ice-core man
Historic variations in CO2 measurements
@richardscourtney
For goodness sake man… which of the statements do you not agree with? Is that too hard to answer or do you not want to put it onto simple words so people can make their own mind up about you. Here they are again….
1. You think it is difficult to prove if humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.
2. You say the warming from increased CO2 is so small it is not worth considering or measurable.
3. You seem to think there is no evidence at all that AGW is real or provable.
If I have it wropng, say so and why then we can put this to bed
Lower Up;
Davidmhoffer, you have also failed to show the four facts are incorrect. So no need to respond.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. Can’t mount a cogent response, so you claim no need to respond. That’s all you got? Four facts that even if they were 100% accurate would still not support your conclusion. Never mind that you made a total fool of yourself with your virus analogy. Then you complain that comments are becoming vitriolic when all people have done is point out the gaping holes in your argument.
You know what I wish? I wish once, just once, someone like you would respond to me with some fact I hadn’t considered, some issue I over looked, some reasoning that would give me pause. But it doesn’t happen. Gimme a troll to discuss science with who is actually capable of holding up their end of the conversation, I look forward to it. But alas, all that gets served up these days is the odd pretentious fool who can’t put together a logical argument backed up by actual data and so resorts to assertions, whining, and excuses to avoid the discussion.
Grab a physics text or two, ask some questions, even jump in and argue a point or two. But all you are doing so far is confirming what we suspected when you first showed up. You don’t know that you are talking about and aren’t interested in learning anything.
Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm
I have stated that I would like the idea that AGW to be refuted, just like every other right thinking human being, I really do.
=================================
Would you focus your furry little brain here for a minute.
You are confused. You have it backwards, you see. It’s up to you to prove your AGW theory.
It is not up to us to prove your theory for you or disprove it, you see.
That is the way it works in science, you see.
You do not seem to understand that elementary point about science.
Crispin in Waterloo & Richard S. Courtney, I look forward to the discussion, and yes it is time for the trolls to go back under their bridge.link
Ed says:
January 5, 2013 at 5:40 pm (replying to)
@richardscourtney
I’m not real sure what you want here with this summary – which you have written as if it were a challenge against RichardSC’s statements, rather than a good, short summary of their truth, their value.
All you have written is, after all, very much correct.
Richard, so not only do you agree that the four facts are correct, but your conclusions are the same as mine. That is that the mechanism for AGW is valid and is occurring I thought you of all people be able to provide a proof that it does not exist.
D Boehm says ‘Finally, as I have written many, many times: AGW probably exists’. Then goes on to say there is no scientific method to determine the extent of AGW. This is an interesting statement because prior to this you were confident it had negligible effect. It is quiet possible according to DB that the effects of AGW are extending further than anybody could have imagined. Perhaps it explains why the out of the 12 hottest years 11 have occurred in the last 11 years.
Richard do you find something self contradictory in your statement: My ‘name calling’ as you put it was rather tame compared to that – I think – reasonable assessment by Ron Richey.
Gail, you are contradicting the evidence that both Richard and DBoehm have provided that humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere. You have also failed to explain why the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. I am aware of the carbon cycle where carbon is cycled between living things and the air. However it is a cycle, so if plants are soaking up carbon from the air, there is a corresponding release of carbon through respiration. Unless you can point to a pile of dead plants and animals locking carbon out of the cycle your point lacks validity. On the other hand I can readily point to holes in the ground where carbon was locked out of the cycle in the form of coal, and this has now been released through combustion back into the atmosphere.
mpainters, I have provided four facts that provide a mechanism for AGW. Some of posters have agreed that all four facts are valid. If you have a reason to believe that they are incorrect, please share it with us.
David you have doubts that the four facts are 100% accurate. What percentage are they inaccurate by? And more importantly why are they inaccurate? What are the gaping holes in the mechanism that you claim are there. You obviously are sitting on something, so let’s have it.
Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm
how far do you have to go to get a statistically significant answer to question is the earth heating up?
That depends on the data set.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
Lower Up;
David you have doubts that the four facts are 100% accurate. What percentage are they inaccurate by? And more importantly why are they inaccurate? What are the gaping holes in the mechanism that you claim are there. You obviously are sitting on something, so let’s have it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I said even if those four facts are 100% accurate, they don’t support the conclusion you draw. I don’t need to prove them wrong when they don’t support your assertion in the first place. The gaping hole in the mechanism is that you haven’t provided either a mechanism or data that correlates to fit your conclusion. Let me help you out:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1920/to:2012/scale:20/offset:350/mean:3
There’s global temperature anomalies since 1920 (beginning of the industrial age) versus CO2 concentrations as measured at Manua Loa since they first began in 1958. Note that I have multiplied the temperature anomalies by a factor of 20 just to make them visible as anything but a straight line. If you could point me to the correlation between the two, I’d be most appreciative.
I notice that you once again sidestepped the issues I brought up earlier, and in trying to deflect instead, once again, challenge me to prove your facts wrong. For the purposes of this discussion, at this point in time, I am accepting your facts as stated, and challenging you to demonstrate with the data available that there is a measurable and, more importantly, alarming in any way, relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature.
Ed:
I am probably making a mistake here by replying to your post at January 5, 2013 at 5:40 pm. I do it in the hope that you will desist and crawl back under your bridge because you are disrupting the thread.
Your post says in total
I “put it to bed” with my first reply to you. I know that, you know that, and everybody can see that, but you have persisted with your nonsense.
So there can be no reason for you to continue your failure to apologise for misrepresenting me, I state the following which I have already repeatedly stated.
A1.
I know as certain fact that it is not possible using all the available data to determine if the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a natural cause, or an anthropogenic cause, or some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes. Indeed, I have published on this in the peer reviewed literature.
A2.
I (and e.g. the IPCC) know the warming from increased atmospheric CO2 is too small for it to be discernible because warming from natural causes is much larger. And I am certain the warming from increased atmospheric CO2 cannot become sufficiently large for it to become discernible in future: in this thread I have stated some – but not all – of the reasons why this is so. Warming which is too small for it to be detected cannot be a problem: observation of its effects would be its detection..
A3.
I (and e.g. the IPCC) know there is no empirical evidence of any kind that AGW is discernible or will become discernible.
In addition, I know of much empirical evidence – and in this thread at January 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm I have listed some – which shows that discernible AGW has NOT happened to date.
Please note the word “discernible” in my points because you have repeatedly misrepresented me by omitting it.
Now, you no longer have any possible excuse for pestering me, so APOLOGISE for your misrepresentations of my statements or clear off.
Richard
Lower up,
You claim that you four so-called “facts” are proven. Not so, as I showed you upthread. Let’s deconstruct one of them:
The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
As I explained to you, the CO2 “greenhouse effect” was almost completely used up in the first few dozen ppmv:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
CO2 levels could double from here with no measurable effect. And that, my friend, destroys your belief that AGW is a problem.
I strongly suspect that you are not reading other comments, or the links provided. Gail Combs put a lot of effort into trying to help educate you, but I’ll bet you never read her comments or links. Apparently you are neither reading nor understanding the many helpful comments, which together falsify your belief system, since you continue to make assertions that have been thoroughly deconstructed in this thread.
Werner Brozek quotes Prof. Richard Lindzen, an internationally esteemed climatologist who heads MIT’s atmospheric sciences department. Dr Lindzen has hundreds of peer reviewed papers published, and he has probably forgotten more about the climate than most of us will ever learn. Dr Lindzen writes:
The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. [my emphasis]
Prof Lindzen puts the AGW scare in perspective: AGW doesn’t matter. You have simply been the victim of the “carbon” scare. It is a complete false alarm. If you would take the time to read the comments and links above, the scales might fall from you eyes, and you might see the light: you, like plenty of others, were duped.
Lower up:
At January 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm you egregiously say to me
That depends on what you mean by “exist”. Also, I don’t provide “proof”: mathematicians provide “proof” and scientists provide conclusions. And I resent your implication that I am a ‘Dragon Slayer’ because I oppose their pseudoscience.
Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
These completely independent studies each provides an indication of climate sensitivity of ~0.4 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects.
Richard
Lower Up;
The IPCC estimates are that doubling of CO2 will result in an increase of 3.7 w/m2 at earth surface which will in turn raise temperatures of earth surface by 1 degree. They calculate average earth surface temperature as 15 degrees C or 288 K. The law of physics applicable in this case is Stefan-Boltzmann Law which defines the equilibrium temperature of an ideal black body with a given energy input. Now earth isn’t an ideal black body, but it is pretty close. So here’s the formula:
P(w/m2) = 5.67 x 10^-6 x T^4 with T in degrees K. So, let’s plug the IPCC estimates into that formula.
P = 5.68 x 10^-8 x 288^4
P= 390.1 w/m2
Good enough, let’s add 3.7 w/m2 to that, and calculate the new average temperature of the earth due to the direct effects of CO2 doubling. 390.1 + 3.7 = 393.8
393.8 = 5.67 x 10^-8 x T^4
T = 288.68
Huh? What happened to 1 degree? Shouldn’t it be 289? Where did 1/3 of 1 degree go?
And you see Lower Up, I know the answer to that question. When you can demonstrate that you do as well, we can have a meaningful conversation. If you would like to understand, and ask politely for help in doing so, I and many others will be glad to oblige.
Ball’s in your court buddy. Got game?
richardscourtney;
And I resent your implication that I am a ‘Dragon Slayer’ because I oppose their pseudoscience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard, I don’t think he even knows who the Dragon Slayers are.