Thanks to Skeptical Science and ScienceFrontier for making this video possible. We can now see the error of our ways.
Consider this a bonus Friday Funny. h/t to Josh.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
December 9, 2013 at 8:35 pm
I would like to hear from someone who has measured the H2O content of the ‘Great Aerial Ocean’
“The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from .01% at -42℃ (-44℉) to 4.24% when the dew point is 30℃ (86℉).”
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
It may answer your other questions.
Dudley Horscroft says:
December 10, 2013 at 5:34 am
Assuming that the specific heat of water is constant from 0 K to 373 K
Do not forget that you have ice up to 273 K and ice has about half the specific heat capacity of liquid water.
As for nutritionists, someone did not realize that a food calorie is really a kilocalorie and once wrote to a doctor about a great way to lose weight, namely by eating a bit of ice each day so the body has to get rid of a lot of heat to melt it. The problem was that a rather large amount of ice needed to be eaten to have any real affect.
dbstealey says:
December 9, 2013 at 6:00 pm
I commented above
“Glad TB asked. Let me educate him…”
Now it is clear: TB is not capable of being educated. His mind is made up, and closed tighter than a drumskin. His On/Off switch has been wired around, and there is no educating him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’re not going to win the argument (not winnable anyway in minds that are made up ) – do you think I thought that whatever I said would persuade you? – no, I merely give you the science as in the consensus peer-review papers. You may/may not read them as you wish. To say that I am “not capable of being educated” doesn’t scan when you have provided no evidence for me to be educated with – just hand waving assertions – and then I’m not capable of being educated? Really? Give me something to be educated with my friend.
“Other readers understand that the onus is not on skeptics to prove a negative; the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd, to show that CO2=cAGW. They have failed”
Read IPCC AR5 and along with some education in climate science it should be easy enough for you to fathom the proof.
“TB is simply the latest loser in that attempt.”
Again I did not expect to “win” on this forum.
“The fact is that alarmists run and hide out from the Scientific Method. All of them, from Mikey Mann, to Phil Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, and the rest of the climate alarmist charlatans. None of them will even debate any more, after having their heads handed to them in every debate they attempted [citations on request].”
A resort to character assassination is not science – try attacking the science… with something physically sensible and peer, or if you like, “pal” reviewed.
“No such measurements exist. There are grant-seeking papers purporting to show a connection, but they do not survive even the most rudimetary scrutiny. There are computer models purporting to show a connection, but not one model — not a single GCM — was able to predict the 17-year halt to global warming. They all failed, and failed badly.”
The measurement are there – you can even download them (ARGO) yourself and prove yourself right if you so wish.
GCM’s cannot predict a specific “pause period” – nothing can yet. Ensemble techniques needed to quantify error bars and sensitivity to starting conditions make that impossible (through multi-members – a single member does often show pauses/spikes however ). And no it does not matter because of the reasons I’ve posted up already (radiative imbalance and take up of heat by the oceans).
Try to think about what can be done INSIDE a closed system – it is because of what goes in (should) = what goes out. Unfortunately it doesn’t. Yes, it merely redistributes heat INTERNALLY and does not change the overall heat content.
“That is to be expected: if a computer model could predict the climate, then it could easily predict the much smaller universe of the stock or commodities markets, and the climate model programmers would be phenomionally wealthy almost overnight.”
No, you talk of a truly chaotic system. Chaos in climate is constrained. You confuse with weather – that is chaotic – and NWP can only go to around 6-10 days max before chaos makes (absolute) prediction impossible. This chaos can be quantified via the ensemble technique to test sensitivity to starting conditions (small changes made then model rerun). Sometimes chaos my mean a sig lack of confidence even at the 3-4 day range.
To return to the much smaller chaos with long-term climate – you need to think about the boiling water analogy.
“Which of course proves conclusively that climate alarmism is complete nonsense; promoted either by lunatics, or by self-serving riders on the grant gravy train. TB, just an anonymous internet coward, falls into the former category. Otherwise, he would be trumpeting his name and accomplishments. No, TB is just someone pretending to be credible. He is not. Sisi is more credible — and she is incredible.”
No, I await any evidence at all from you – the only graph you linked to is unintelligible and after repeated requests no enlightenment is forthcoming.
“. No, TB is just someone pretending to be credible. He is not”
As they say my friend..
There’s many an inmate of the lunatic asylum that thinks they are the only sane one in there.
BTW: I have been insulted by certain skeptics before and it doesn’t make me, either not knowledgeable or “not credible” either. There are many climate researches out there who know otherwise … I await a list of those that agree with you and a list of their papers. You know the ones that the IPCC thought overwhelmingly outnumbered the ones I agree with.
i may have insufficient knowledge (obviously) .am willing to learn>>> Does cold water ‘hug’ warm water as it desends through it? could you explain that in layman’s terms?
From one of @TB links:
“That means, while rolling down the Arctic shelf, the salty sinking water masses come across a layer of warm Atlantic water. They take part of the heat and salt in this Atlantic layer and transport it to deeper levels in the Arctic Ocean”
http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/awi_longterm_data_reveal_increase_of_temperature_in_the_deep_greenland_see/?cHash=5c544da858444ebee05f5f7cab41d22f
Thanks for the info.
TB says:
“You’re not going to win the argument (not winnable anyway in minds that are made up ) – do you think I thought that whatever I said would persuade you? – no…” & etc.
TB is wrong. He can easily persuade me by simply posting verifiable, testable evidence showing the measurable degree of temperature rise per unit of human-emitted CO2. Measurements, please. Science isn’t much without measurements: it can go no farther than a Conjecture [Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.]
I have been asking for that specific information here for years, but not one person has been able to provide it. Maybe TB will be the first, eh?
Since it has been proposed that the U.S. and other developed countries should pay out $Trillions for ‘mitigation’, it is only reasonable to request stringent, measurable, verifiable and testable standards.
As a true scientiofic skeptic, my mind is never made up. But it is a hallmark of the alarmist clique that nothing can change their minds, not even definitive proof that CO2 does not cause any measurable change in global temperature; in reality, the exact opposite is true: changes in global T cause changes in atmospheric CO2. [For empirical evidence, just ask]. There are no verifiable long term measurements that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None at all. The alarmist crowd simply got causality reversed. ∆T causes ∆CO2; there is no long term evidence for the reverse being true.
I trust that decisively settles the question of those whose minds are made up and closed tight, and those whose minds are open to be changed.
As a skeptic, the following hypothesis [which I have repeatedly proposed] is in order. Simply falsify this testable hypothesis, per the Scientific Method, and I will concede the argument. The skeptics’ hypothesis is:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
Be sure to identify verifiable global harm due specifically to the rise in human-emitted CO2, and also be prepared to show conclusively that more CO2 is not a net benefit to the biosphere.
Others have tried; all have failed. Most do not even try to falsify the skeptics’ hypothesis. Conversely, the climate alarmist crowd’s CO2=cAGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified. That debate was decided long ago. All we are left with now is nitpicking by those who insist on believing that runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, due to the rise in human CO2 emissions, is a scientific fact. It is not, and it never was.
Thanks, Werner, for your correction. The relevant paragraph should now read:
“Assuming that the specific heat of ice is 0.5 from 0 K to 273 K, one gram of water at 373 K holds 273/2 + 80 [latent heat of melting] + 100 calories, total approximately 316.5 calories. The latent heat of vaporization is 538 calories per gram, so one gram of steam at 373 K contains 316.5 + 538 = 854.5 calories. 854.5 divided by 316.5 gives 2.6998, so the phrase should read “one contains roughly 2.7 times the heat!!” “
Dudley & Werner,
Thank you both for the calculations! I was holding my breath as I wrote, ‘twice the heat’, because that is how I remember it, when I first learn’t about the latent heat of steam a very long time ago! I just wanted to make the point, particularly to layman, that heat isn’t temperature. And water’s changes of state, play an important role in heat exchange in aspects of the hydrological cycle that are underplayed in the debate (Particularly as regards the modelling of clouds!). My personal concern is with the “non-equilibrium behavior of water vapor. (Take two masses of air, at the same temperature and pressure, with the same water content. One will have clouds, the other won’t.)” I worry that the actual water content of the atmosphere at any one time is unknown because it is dependant on condensation nuclei (CCNs). And my other interest is just how much CO2 is handled by clouds to form carbonic acid and bicarbonate ions, thus absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere in the immediate vicinity! Clouds do a lot of other complex stuff too! They shade, cool, warm, radiate, absorb, transmit, emit, convect, sublimate, generate… etc 😉
philincalifornia says:
December 9, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Forget the essays TB, please provide 1, 2 ,3, 4 or 5 bullet points showing direct evidence that anthropogenic CO2 gives a measurable change in anything associated with global climate.
You’ve had 30 years and a 40% increase in CO2, of which not all is anthropogenic.
Your next post will not contain the asked for bullet point(s).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Phil:
The “essay” you talk of was what was needed to adequately comment on assertions made up-thread. Notice I provided links/quotes to back up my statements……… not hand-waving.
Hence the length of post.
I have provided much direct evidence already – specifically of the radiative imbalance and the uptake of heat into the oceans. Here I give evidence for increase in CO2 being anthro.
“You’ve had 30 years and a 40% increase in CO2, of which not all is anthropogenic “
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
“Fossil fuels such as coal and oil are made primarily of plant material that was deposited millions of years ago. This period of time equates to thousands of half-lives of 14C, so essentially all of the 14C in fossil fuels has decayed. Fossil fuels also are depleted in 13C relative to the atmosphere, because they were originally formed from living organisms. Therefore, the carbon from fossil fuels that is returned to the atmosphere through combustion is depleted in both 13C and 14C compared to atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
Look, the ph of the oceans is increasing (getting more acidic) therefore they MUST be a SINK for CO2 and not a source…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
And from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
“Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. On longer time-scales they may be both sources and sinks”
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/hansen_pnas_fig.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-Mauna-Loa_(2).png
CO2 should be naturally stable in the atmosphere give a stable climatic regime. Ie the sinks match the sources in sequestering the naturally produced carbon. It is only when the climate is perturbed and temps rise/fall (primarily orbitally induced) that the carbon cycle switches to an overall addition of CO2 to atmosphere or vice versa.
From: http://isnap.nd.edu/Lectures/phys20054/Industrial_Revolution_and_the_Impact_on_Global_Climate.pdf
“A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.”
Werner Brozek says:
December 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm
TB says:
December 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm
GHG’s require a triatomic structure and only ~1% of the atmosphere (78% N2 and 21% O2) has that property.
Are you saying 1% of dry air is triatomic? The percentages are N2 = 78.0805, O2 = 20.9437, Ar = 0.934. So all other gases are 0.0418. Now it must be kept in mind this is dry air so at the most, 0.0418% is triatomic. However as we know, H2O is the biggest greenhouse gas and its percentage can vary from 0% to 4% so we can assume very roughly that water vapor counts for 2% of the atmosphere. If we add CO2 from 1750, we get 2.028% for H2O and CO2 combined. If we add CO2 from the present, we get 2.040% for H2O and CO2 combined. Neglecting other very trace gases, it does not seem likely that the increase from 2.028% to 2.040% would have a huge affect on climate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK fair 1st point Werner
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_composition
N2=78.084
02=20.946
Ar=0.934 or 99.656% of atm by molecule
CO2=0.000314
CH4=0.000002
OK % Triatomic is 0.000316% (not including H2O)
My rounded approximation of ~1% is wrong when looked at in thousandths.
Still the comparison remains that a GHG forcing percentage affected by a 40% increase in the CO2 fraction is VERY significant it you first have to discount 99.6% of the atmosphere not having that effect.
However the (ave) water content of the (whole) atmosphere is not 2% – it is
From: http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_2/2_2.htm
The remaining 0.1% of the atmosphere consists of the trace constituents. These include water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, various oxides of nitrogen, neon, and helium. They are called trace gases because they exist in small amounts.
“Near the surface, water vapour can be as high as 2-3% of the gaseous portion of the atmosphere in a warm ground fog. (The 0.1% figure cited above for trace constituents is a global average.) In the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where temperatures increase with height and vertical motions are weak, water vapour is typically a few parts water per million molecules of air by volume (ppmv).”
And from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
“Water vapour accounts for roughly 0.25% of the atmosphere by mass. The concentration of water vapour varies significantly from around 10 ppmv in the coldest portions of the atmosphere to as much as 5% by volume in hot, humid air masses”
You confuse WV in the Trop, specifically the lower portion with the total content in the whole atmosphere including in the Strat (v v dry). The GHE works greatest over arid regions – deserts and the poles where there are only trace amounts of WV.
A 40% increase has “a huge affect on climate.”….
Depends what you mean by huge. If you mean in historical/geological terms, yes. The rate of increase is unprecedented ( given that CO2 normal follows temp and not leads). Bare in mind though that we have seen an increase of just ~0.8C and the problem is that as the Earth’s climate/ecosystems are so finely balanced feed-backs occur quite quickly to put the system out of balance.
TB says:
December 7, 2013 at 1:28 am
“Did anyone notice that the post-industrial global ave temp has been added to the end of a graph of historical ice-core data from the Greenland dome?”
What I noticed was that there is less than 0.5°C variation through the last 700yrs on that graph, which is most unlikely. Compare it to this where we see a 2°C variation:
http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Greenland-ice-core-data.png
What everyone is failing to notice is that the Greenland ice cores are an inverse proxy for the temperate zone. Note on this graph that temperatures drop from 1690/95 (the coldest part of Maunder) to 1725, and that they drop from 1820 (the end of Dalton) to 1830, and then rise to 1845. Most of it is going in the complete opposite direction to CET:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
The warm periods in Greenland around 2300-2200 BC and 1300-1200 BC were very cold periods in the temperate zone that caused the collapse of many civilisations, the latter is erroneously referred to as the Minoan warm period, it was actually the century of their demise. The colder period in Greenland around 2700-2400 BC was the greatest period of human expansion previous to the current one, and has the most similar temperatures to the present too:
http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
TB says:
December 11, 2013 at 2:01 am
I will admit that my 2% was off since I just read from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
“Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.”
I was not talking about the stratosphere, but just about the layer below the clouds. Of course the water vapor is much less above the clouds.
As for the number for CO2 being 0.000314, that must be an older source since it is now 0.04%. So 99.96% is not carbon dioxide.
You say: “The GHE works greatest over arid regions – deserts and the poles where there are only trace amounts of WV.” Did you see the latest record low temperature recorded in Antarctica? Somehow the greenhouse affect of CO2 does not scare me.
P.S. Thank you for your comments Dudley and Scott.
Werner Brozek says:
December 11, 2013 at 8:02 am
TB says:
December 11, 2013 at 2:01 am
I will admit that my 2% was off since I just read from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
“Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.”
I was not talking about the stratosphere, but just about the layer below the clouds. Of course the water vapor is much less above the clouds.
You say: “The GHE works greatest over arid regions – deserts and the poles where there are only trace amounts of WV.” Did you see the latest record low temperature recorded in Antarctica? Somehow the greenhouse affect of CO2 does not scare me.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK Werner no probs…
However it is the whole atmosphere, not just the boundary layer wherein the GHE works and where the WV feed-back is calculated from.
I actually nearly explained why Antarctica is different in the OP as I thought someone would chime in when they saw “poles”.
A lesson on Antarctica – it is very, very, different from the Arctic…
Antarctica is at an AVERAGE height of 12000ft, has maximum albedo and has air in almost constant circulation over it (aloft of katabatic drainage). Air has great difficulty in penetrating into it and bring as well.
Yet still West Antarctica and the peripheries are warming. Making for a slight average warming.
Sea ice is half as thick as that formed in the Arctic sea and is not enclosed by land-mass. It is free to expand out through winter and is doing so because of lower salinity from peripheral melt in summer and divergent winds blowing it further afield. In short sea-ice has more than temp involved in it formation. The frigid temps recorded in the high Dome Ridge area are no surprise – who knows what temp would have been seen in past decades if we’d had the satellites.
This paper found a cooling in the Strat. and warming in the mid Trop. (both signatures of AGW). A surface trend for warming will be further masked by proximity to ice/snow ( radiative, sublimative cooling).
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/10642
TB says:
December 11, 2013 at 9:39 am
Thank you! I have a question for you.
Will GISS now update their August 2010 anomaly using their usual methods?
Werner and Ulric,
As usual, I expect endless nitpicking from TB. We’re familiar with the type around here: whenever it is pointed out that Planed Earth is decisively falsifying the catastrophic AGW conjecture, some alarmist pops up with a pal reviewed paper, or a reference to one of the always-inaccurate GCM models — or a nitpick about how water vapor is “very, very different” in one particular location. But none of that matters.
The bottom line is this: All predictions of runaway global warming have been decisively refuted. Not only is accelerating global warming not happening, even with the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, global warming has stopped.
If there is any validity to Occam’s Razor, the simple explanations is that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. But for various reasons, the alarmist crowd is unable to accept reality. They have no concept of scientific skepticism. So they constantly nitpick with their impotent appeals to authority, while the planet ignores the rise in harmless CO2.
TB says:
December 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm
“The LIA was not a global event is was a regional one – please provide evidence to the contrary.”
===================
OK here is a link to papers about the LIA in New Zealand.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N19/C3.php
TB says:
December 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm
“The LIA was not a global event is was a regional one – please provide evidence to the contrary.”
===================
OK here is a link to papers about the LIA in New Zealand.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N19/C3.php
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, there is some conflicting evidence….
See what I mean by the below.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5927/622
I thank TB for his link to the second paper – a most interesting article. First, it appears that the age measurements of the NZ glacier moraines were based on 10 Beryllium. This is formed from the cosmic ray spallation of Oxygen atoms, and the deposit of the Be atoms on exposed rock surfaces, together with similar spallation of oxygen atoms within rock boulders with the 10Be atoms remaining in situ. 10Be has a half life of 1.39M years, with a stable decay product of Boron 10. The major Be isotype is 9Be = 100% with 10Be and 7Be being quoted as “trace”. Nevertheless, I accept that the ages measured for the samples taken are accurate.
However, the “terminal moraines are created at the edge of the greatest extent of the glacier. At this point, the debris that has been accumulated by plucking and abrasion, that has been pushed by the front edge of the ice is driven no farther, but instead is dumped in a heap.” (Wikipaedia on ‘terminal moraines’). As such an age from any particular rock may not be the actual age the terminal moraine was created, but may reflect an older age if it was exposed to the deposition/ creation of 10Be at an earlier date, and has survived on or near the surface, ready for sampling. This is evident from five samples on one moraine, ranging from 170 plus/minus 20 years ago to 530 plus/minus 50 years ago. It is more plausible, surely, that this particular moraine was created about 1830, rather than about 1480. The oldest sample, BC 2370 plus/minus 760 years, is from an outlier and only one sample was taken from that moraine.
The article is surely on good ground when the writers argue that their results are consistent neither with the hypothesis that Southern hemisphere glaciations (as demonstrated by their research in NZ) occurred at the same time as in Europe, nor the opposite, that Southern hemisphere glaciations alternated with the European glaciations. Rather, they opine that the evidence argues for some sort of regional influence on glaciations in NZ. Given the South Island of NZ’s exposure to maritime influences, and NE/NW Europe’s exposure to continental influences, this would seem reasonable, and that anyone searching for definite evidence from NZ for a confirmation of Global Warming and CO2 relationship would have a hard time.
Or did I misunderstand what they are saying?
@TB – you did not ask him for a complete debate on the LIA, just evidence it was world wide. He provided it. You did not prove your assertion. He disproved it.
philjourdan says:
December 12, 2013 at 6:35 am
@TB – you did not ask him for a complete debate on the LIA, just evidence it was world wide. He provided it. You did not prove your assertion. He disproved it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“some” would of course think that Phil – and as I said there is some contradictory evidence and also “one swallow does not make a summer”. There is plenty of scope for a linked, probably ocean current related phenomenon to explain it. The fact remains that there has to be a theory the explain “any” such long-term global warming, if not caused either by the sun or orbital forcing (this needs to be in the NH due the much larger land mass there). There is none.
Global cooling can however be caused by change in albedo – volcanic activity for instance and the time of the LIA did see some above average vulcanism
The science does not accept that the MWP or LIA where global. Argue with the text books, not me. It’s not my place to prove anything – I just merely offer up the consensus theory here. And no more.
@TB – No, all would. Your exchange was not the sum total of a debate. You made a simple demand – provide ANY evidence. He did. He did not provide all the evidence. He did not prove that the LIA was world wide. He did provide ANY evidence that it was.
So he proved you wrong. Perhaps you meant to ask him to PROVE the LIA was World wide. But you did not. If you had demanded THAT point, his response would have been inadequate.
Either learn to ask what you mean, or accept that what you ask is what you get.
philjourdan,
As I pointed out above, TB, like most alarmists, will nitpick any subject to death. It is their cognitive dissonance; not being capable of admitting that the planet periodically goes through warming and cooling episodes.
Mountains of empirical evidence show that there was a global MWP and LIA. But since accepting that fact destroys the basic premise of the alarmist clique, they simply cannot admit to it. Sad, really.
@dbstealey – I know. But they try to trip you up with semantics and bait and switch. While my technical knowledge of the subject pales in comparison to many here, I have the good fortune to be married to a lady who is in the legal profession. So I have been trained to watch for the semantic switches and the bait and switch. And I call them out on it.
philjourdan says:
December 12, 2013 at 6:35 am
@TB – you did not ask him for a complete debate on the LIA, just evidence it was world wide. He provided it. You did not prove your assertion. He disproved it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I accept that there is some evidence that warm/cold periods around the time of the MWP and LIA in the SH. (I did know of some – but had not researched).
I apologise therefore for not giving credit for that.
@TB – You are an honest man. Thank you.
philjourdan says:
December 13, 2013 at 9:54 am
@TB – You are an honest man. Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And thank-you Phil for acknowledging my admission.
Look, I make take the opposite view than most on here but I do not seek to bullshit may way along.
If I am wrong I hope I will admit it again in the future.
I am on here to learn as well as you.
Cyrus;
+1