?

Log in

My tweets

Tags:

21 February - Sidebar List 20

2016 ELECTION WRAP-UP: WHAT WE LEARNED FROM DASHBOARD INTELLIGENCE

Alleged Fake News Sources

UK passes 'Snoopers Charter'

Fake News of the Future

Slate's Debunking Tool

My tweets

Tags:

My tweets

Tags:

My tweets

Tags:

My tweets

Tags:


Are Climate Modelers Scientists? Watts Up With That


Guest essay by Pat Frank

For going on two years now, I’ve been trying to publish a manuscript that critically assesses the reliability of climate model projections. The manuscript has been submitted twice and rejected twice from two leading climate journals, for a total of four rejections. All on the advice of nine of ten reviewers. More on that below.

The analysis propagates climate model error through global air temperature projections, using a formalized version of the “passive warming model” (PWM) GCM emulator reported in my 2008 Skeptic article. Propagation of error through a GCM temperature projection reveals its predictive reliability.

Those interested can consult the invited poster (2.9 MB pdf) I presented at the 2013 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco. Error propagation is a standard way to assess the reliability of an experimental result or a model prediction. However, climate models are never assessed this way.

..... uncertainty is so large because ±4 W m-2 of annual long wave cloud forcing error is ±114´ larger than the annual average 0.035 Wm-2 forcing increase of GHG emissions since 1979. Typical error bars for CMIP5 climate model projections are about ±14 C after 100 years and ±18 C after 150 years.

It’s immediately clear that climate models are unable to resolve any thermal effect of greenhouse gas emissions or tell us anything about future air temperatures. It’s impossible that climate models can ever have resolved an anthropogenic greenhouse signal; not now nor at any time in the past.

Propagation of errors through a calculation is a simple idea. It’s logically obvious. It’s critically important. It gets pounded into every single freshman physics, chemistry, and engineering student.

And it has escaped the grasp of every single Ph.D. climate modeler I have encountered, in conversation or in review.

Physical error analysis is critical to all of science, especially experimental physical science. It is not too much to call it central.

Result ± error tells what one knows. If the error is larger than the result, one doesn’t know anything.

..... wandering projections do not represent natural variability. They represent how parameter magnitudes varied across their uncertainty ranges affect the temperature simulations of the HadCM3L model itself.

The Figure fully demonstrates that climate models are incapable of producing a unique solution to any climate energy-state.

That means simulations close to observations are not known to accurately represent the true physical energy-state of the climate. They just happen to have opportunistically wonderful off-setting errors.

That means, in turn, the projections have no informational value. They tell us nothing about possible future air temperatures.

There is no way to know which of the simulations actually represents the correct underlying physics. Or whether any of them do. And even if one of them happens to conform to the future behavior of the climate, there’s no way to know it wasn’t a fortuitous accident.

Models with large parameter uncertainties can not produce a unique prediction. The reviewers’ confident statements show they have no understanding of that, or of why it’s important.

Now suppose Rowlands, et al., tuned the parameters of the HADCM3L model so that it precisely reproduced the observed air temperature line.

Would it mean the HADCM3L had suddenly attained the ability to produce a unique solution to the climate energy-state?

Would it mean the HADCM3L was suddenly able to reproduce the correct underlying physics?

Obviously not.

..... climate modelers:


  • neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.

  • are entirely ignorant of propagated error.

  • think the ± bars of propagated error mean the model itself is oscillating.

  • have no understanding of physical error.

  • have no understanding of the importance or meaning of a unique result.

No working physical scientist would fall for any one of those mistakes, much less all of them. But climate modelers do.

And this long essay does not exhaust the multitude of really basic mistakes in scientific thinking these reviewers made.

.....The inescapable conclusion is that climate modelers are not scientists. They don’t think like scientists, they are not doing science. They have no idea how to evaluate the physical validity of their own models.

They should be nowhere near important discussions or decisions concerning science-based social or civil policies.



First, Anthony, thank-you very much for posting my essay about climate modelers. I am grateful for the opportunity.

Next, Slywolfe, if you understand the first figure of the essay, or the fourth, or the linked poster, you’ll know that climate models can’t make any predictions at all and so, ipso facto, can not “do a good job.” Unless making not-predictions is their job.

Crediting your credit, Dana doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And, as regards climate futures, neither does anyone else.





  • Pat,
    Thanks for generating a very worthwhile discussion on the GCM failures and allowing WUWT readers a “peer-reviewing” the sorry state of Climate Science manuscript peer-reviewers. Bob Tisdale and Christopher Monckton (as you may be aware) regularly update WUWT readers with GCM external failures. Your elucidation of the internal reasons for those GCM failures (along with RGBatDuke, Ferdburple, Jimbo, and many others) is very much appreciated.

    I understood most of what you presented and took away a very important refresher lesson on the importance of a “unique result” in any science-based model. I also remember, that some months back someone at WUWT posted a comment that the GCM initializations used a single value for enthalpy of evaporation for 4º C water instead of 26º C as is for most of the tropical waters. They mentioned that evaporation enthalpy value error would propagate through the hundreds of iterations of the GCM’s, compounding until nothing was left but essentially a random noise signal. That made me realize that the GCMs of the IPCC are total crap, built with circular logic to deliver a politically-desired output.

    Joel O’Bryan, PhD






  • Thanks, Joel. I’d never have thought of that water enthalpy error. One expects if all the physical errors of climate models were documented, their propagation would produce a centennial uncertainty envelope of approximately the size of North America.






  • Pat Frank
    I’ll make it ultra-simple for you: Predicting the future (anything) is very difficult for humans. One might as well flip a coin.
    .
    The IPCC Report Summary is leftist personal opinions formatted to look like a real scientific study.
    .
    As you can see from the formerly beloved Mann Hockey Stick chart, ‘predicting the past’ is just as difficult for the “climate astrologers” as predicting the future.
    .
    It’s a climate change cult. — a secular religion for people who reject traditional religions.
    .
    The coming global warming catastrophe scam is 99% politics and 1% science.
    .
    You can not debate a cult using data, logic and facts any more than you can debate the existence of god with a Baptist.
    .
    The long list of environmental boogeymen started with DDT in the 1960s, and as each new boogeyman lost its ability to scare people, a new boogeyman was created, and the old one was immediately forgotten.

    If we are lucky, and it seems that we have been for two years so far, it will remain cold enough so the average person begins to doubt the coming global warming catastrophe predictions — thank you Mr. Sun and Mrs. Cosmic Rays, for riling up the leftist so they reveal their true bad character — with harsh character attacks on scientists who do not deserve them.



    Richard, I don’t disagree with your general point.

    But consider that Maxwell’s equations do a darn good job predicting the future behavior of emitted electromagnetic waves. And Newton’s theory does a good job at predicting the future positions of the planets — at least out to a billion years or so. In my field, QM does a pretty good job of predicting the details of x-ray absorption spectra before any measurement.

    So, physical science has a good array of predictive theories. Climate modelers have managed to convince people that they can predict future climate to high resolution. Their claim is supported only by the abandonment of standard scientific practice. Abandonment not just in climatology, but by august bodies such as the Royal Society and the American Physical Society.

    In a way the modelers themselves are innocents, because my experience shows they’re not trained physical scientists at all. They couldn’t have abandoned a method they never knew or understood. The true fault lays with the physical scientists, especially the APS, who let climate modelers get away with their ignorance and scientific incompetence.




    Stop wasting your time with “climate journals”. They continue their gate-keeping while your message is being missed in the climate policy debate. Why not try publishing your paper in a journal where peer review is not redefined in order to protect the AGW-hypothesis and the climate model industry?






    • “Why not try publishing your paper in a journal where peer review is not redefined in order to protect the AGW-hypothesis and the climate model industry?”

      Try finding one,….the cancer is well established.







A scientist is a person with common sense who is very skeptical about every conclusion (hypothesis) presented by scientists, including his own conclusions. A degree is not relevant — the quality of his scientific work determines whether he deserves to be called a “scientist”.
.
Predicting the future with computer games, has nothing to do with science.

A scientist would never focus on ONLY one variable, CO2, probably a very minor variable with no correlation with average temperature, when there are dozens of variables affecting Earth’s climate … and then further focus only on manmade CO2, for political reasons (only that 3% of all atmospheric CO2 can be blamed on humans … which is the goal of climate modelers … along with getting more government grants.)

But Big Government, who wants a “crisis” that must be “solved” by increasing government power over the private sector, could not possibly influence scientists getting government grants and/or salaries, and of course NEVER has to be disclosed as part of an article, white paper or other report by any scientist on the goobermint dole.

Pat Frank .......Climate models are like engineering models. They can be made to describe the behavior of elements of the climate within the time bounds were tuning data exist. However, they’re being used to project behavior well outside their bound. The claim is then made that they do this accurately, and that’s the problem........the (+/-) uncertainties are not temperatures. They are an ignorance width. When they become (+/-)15 C large, they just mean that the projection can’t tell us anything at all about the state of the future climate.

,,,,,,,
When there is an average annual (+/-)4 Wm^-2 error in long wave cloud forcing, it means the available energy is not correctly partitioned among the climate substates.

This means that one is not simulating the correct climate, for that total energy state. That incorrect climate is then projected forward, but projected incorrectly relative to its particular and incorrect energy sub-states because the error derives from theory-bias.

So an already incorrect climate state is further projected incorrectly into the next step.

The uncertainty envelope describes the increasing lack of knowledge one has concerning the position of the simulated climate in its phase-space relative to the position of the physically correct climate. That lack of knowledge becomes worse and worse as the number of simulation steps increases, because of the unceasing injection and projection of error.

The uncertainty grows without bound, because it is not a physical quantity. It is an ignorance width. When the width becomes very large, it means the simulation no longer has any knowable information about the physically true climate state.

Such results are not nonsensical. They are cautionary; or should be.

Cold Hard Climate

George Washingtons Winters Judith Curry

Frozen rivers, knee-deep snows, sleet, frigid temperatures, and other winter miseries helped shape the story of George Washington’s life.

Mount Vernon, the site of George Washington’s home, has posted an interesting article Washington’s winters.
In a March 18, 1780 letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington wrote that “The oldest people now living in this Country do not remember so hard a Winter as the one we are now emerging from. In a word, the severity of the frost exceeded anything of the kind that had ever been experienced in this climate before.”

While these reflections on the climate of the late 18th century are anecdotal, this was clearly a cold period globally, as indicated by this figure from the IPCC AR5:

Slide2

Tony Brown has also written several posts that include this period:

The IPCC defines ‘dangerous climate change’ as 2C warming since pre-industrial times, circa 1750.  The 18th century was one of the coldest centuries in the millennia — and George Washington’s winter experiences don’t sound like much fun.

In my post The Goldilocks Principle, I raised the question of which climate do we want?  I don’t think it is the climate of the 18th century.  One answer is the climate that we are adapted to, which is arguably the present climate.  Or perhaps it was the climate of the 1970’s, before the late 20th century warming,  a period that was relatively benign in terms of extreme weather events

Why are we defining ‘dangerous climate change’ with respect to the climate of the 18th century, which was the coldest period in the last millennia, with wicked winters?  Why not use a reference point of 2000 or 1970?  The IPCC doesn’t provide  a convincing explanation for the overall warming between 1750 and 1950; according to climate models, human causes contributed only a very small amount to the global warming to during this period (so presumably this overall warming was caused by natural climate variability).  Co-opting the period between 1750 and 1950 into the AGW argument muddies the scientific and the policy waters.

It would make much more sense — from a scientific perspective, from the perspective of adaptation and engineering, and in the public communication of climate change — to refer to warming relative to a more recent reference period.  Since the emissions reference periods are between 1990 and 2005, this also adds to the argument of citing a more recent reference period for defining ‘dangerous’.

The argument that human caused warming is already ‘dangerous’ — widely made by politicians, the media and some scientists — flies in the face of scientific evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 and SREX.  Extreme weather events were worse earlier in the 20th century, and sea level has been rising for millennia, with recent rates of sea level rise comparable to what was observed in the middle 20th century.

Studying air trapped inside Greenland ice cores researchers updated and corroborated their previous findings. The Earth has actually been cooling for thousands of years. Temperature changes during the 20th Century were just a tiny blip among many such blips over the years. The last 4000 years includes ups and downs — cooling trends followed by warming trends, etc. — and even a Little Ice Age lasting hundreds of years from before the time of Charles Dickens to when George Washington crossed the Delaware. But, that is what climate change is all about: it changes!


  1. Oceans warm, Polar Oceans Thaw, Snowfall increases. This did happen as we came out of the Little Ice Age. Ice is being replenished on Antarctica, Greenland and Mountain Glaciers. Ice builds up and spreads out, dumping ice and ice cold water into the oceans and on land until earth cools.This happens later. Polar oceans freeze and the sun takes away ice every year until earth warms again. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it. CO2 just makes the green stuff grow better with less water.

    It is warm now because it is supposed to be warm now. It will stay warm about as long as the Roman and Medieval periods stayed warm and then the replenished ice will cool earth into the next little ice age. What has happened will happen again. This is the only modern climate theory that does match with actual data.


    • If you look at the rate of ice increase and temperature in ice core data, The rate of ice replacement is always highest when temperatures are highest. The rate of ice replacement is always lowest when temperatures are lowest.
      Don’t take my word, look for yourself. Ice core data for Greenland and Antarctica both show this. Ice core data for Greenland and Antarctica show that temperatures have been bounded inside the same limits in the SH and NH for ten thousand years. This while solar input decreased in the NH and increased in the SH. The Polar oceans freeze and thaw at the same temperature and provide the thermostats in both hemispheres.

      Don’t take my word, look for yourself. Ice core data for Greenland and Antarctica both show this. Ice core data for Greenland and Antarctica show that temperatures have been bounded inside the same limits in the SH and NH for ten thousand years. [..] Tell us all if you Agree or Disagree and why.“. An idea worth exploring, but I’m closer to the Disagree camp. The last 10k years looks more like the top of a curve than a bounded cycle …

      … and that fits well with the longer-term picture …
      http://s90.photobucket.com/user/dhm1353/media/Climate%20Change/alley.png.html
      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/clip_image002_thumb3.png?w=534&h=287
      … and although that last one looks like a bounded cycle, it’s probably just part of an even bigger picture …

      … ad infinitum (infinity ~= 4.5bn yrs)






  1. Oceans warm, Polar Oceans Thaw, Snowfall increases. This did happen as we came out of the Little Ice Age. Ice is being replenished on Antarctica, Greenland and Mountain Glaciers. Ice builds up and spreads out, dumping ice and ice cold water into the oceans and on land until earth cools.This happens later. Polar oceans freeze and the sun takes away ice every year until earth warms again. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it. CO2 just makes the green stuff grow better with less water.

    It is warm now because it is supposed to be warm now. It will stay warm about as long as the Roman and Medieval periods stayed warm and then the replenished ice will cool earth into the next little ice age. What has happened will happen again. This is the only modern climate theory that does match with actual data.


    • If you look at the rate of ice increase and temperature in ice core data, The rate of ice replacement is always highest when temperatures are highest. The rate of ice replacement is always lowest when temperatures are lowest.
      Don’t take my word, look for yourself. Ice core data for Greenland and Antarctica both show this. Ice core data for Greenland and Antarctica show that temperatures have been bounded inside the same limits in the SH and NH for ten thousand years. This while solar input decreased in the NH and increased in the SH. The Polar oceans freeze and thaw at the same temperature and provide the thermostats in both hemispheres.




Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: ‘Is climate changing and in what direction?’ ‘Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?’ And: ‘Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?’ The most fundamental question is: ‘Can humans manipulate climate predictably?’ Or, more scientifically: ‘Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?’ The answer is ‘No’. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma. (Philip Stott)


  • In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something.

    A system that cycles in the same bounds in two hemispheres for ten thousand years is not linear, it is cyclic, it is an irregular cycle, the bounds are not chaotic, some of the changes inside the bounds are chaotic, but not the bounds. If you don’t understand the cycle and the bounds, anything you do or don’t do is unpredictable. If you do understand the cycle and the bounds, you will know that earth temperature is regulated and what we do does not matter for the temperature or sea level. We could build a dam and stop warm water from flowing into the Arctic and we could cause a major disruption to the NH. There is nothing we could do to change the SH.

    If CO2 causes warming, and it most likely does, a little, that warming melts the polar oceans sooner and turns up the snowfall rate sooner and limits the upper bound at the same temperature and the same sea level.



    • I’m going to continue with another drum bang.

      There’s reason to believe that global warming is real but the climate change is largelya false narrative.

      And before the screams, yes, temperature is a metric of climate.

      But the intimated ‘dangers’ of ‘climate change’ are portrayed as change in climatic events. These events occur because of motion of the atmosphere. There is a lack of physics behind the assertions that CO2 or increased global temperature have anything to do with the motions of weather and climate.

      Climate is derived from weather.
      Weather occurs because of motion of the atmosphere.
      Motion of the atmosphere is forced by pressure gradients
      Pressure gradients occur because of temperature gradients.
      And temperature gradients occur because of the polar-deficit-tropical-surplus of net radiance.

      But…
      Neither carbon dioxide, nor global average temperature, nor the theorized conditions in which such events will occur, significantly change the fundamental pole-to-equator gradient in net radiance which drives the general circulation.

      There is plenty of natural variation, with, as far as we can estimate, no significant change in the pole-to-equator gradients, reminding us that we can expect extremes.

      Global warming would appear to be real, but I don’t see a physical explanation, and indeed, observations don’t bear out climate change.

      Climate is determined by geography…

      To an extent, that’s true, largely because of mountains.

      Mountains exert a pressure gradient against an oncoming wind ( like blowing the foam across the top of your hot chocolate causes the foam to conform to the edge of your cup and circle back even though you blow it away ).

      But mountains won’t change much with CO2 or temperature either.

      Oceans are a great source of humidity, but they don’t define climate. Consider the Namibian Desert which, according to paleo records, has been in place for 60 million years. Yet it is right upon the ocean’s edge. So too are the Atacama, the Sonoran, and Saudi Arabia.

      These places don’t lack access to rain bringing humidity, but they do lack converging fluid flow which causes the lift necessary for rain.

      But back to may drum, there are some caveats, but the fundamental aspects of climate won’t change with global warming.

      Geography is already implicated in models of ocean current flow as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge varies in height. Now sand dunes look to be a stable phenomenon. When people are tracking ideas promulgated by Emmanuel Velikovsky ( Worlds in Collision ) you know strange is on the agenda and no holds are barred.

      synopsis | thunderbolts.info | The Thunderbolts Project

      ThunderboltsProject's insight: Velikovsky's work inspired many of the people who are now involved with The Thunderbolts Project.



My tweets

Climate Commentary - GHGs

Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr. was expounding upon 'greenhouse gas' - a concept with many unanswered questions - and I noticed this in Comments


( Not that either Roger A. Pielke Sr. - or Jr. - are fans of an analysis which treats CO 2 levels as the determining factor in global atmospheric temperatures.
Perspective on the Role of Humans in Climate Change )






Dear Dr Pielke:

The bottom line here is that when you add IR absorbing gases to the atmosphere, you slow down the loss of energy from the ground and the ground must warm up.

What are “IR absorbing gases”? As far as I am aware, gas molecules can absorb light quanta but by becoming excited, they give up the energy just as quickly. There is a slight loss of energy because of increased entropy on the release of that energy, because some of that motion is converted into molecular oscillation and some into translational energy.

You appear to reject the nomeclature of “greenhouse theory” because that isn’t how greenhouses warm up, but you describe the warming of the lower atmosphere as if there was a sheet of glass high up there which heats up and then magically re-radiates the energy to the ground and then slows down the re-emission of the heat back into space. This is a false model.

Real greenhouses don’t work like this either – they warm because they restrict the convectional motion of the air, something demonstrated one hundred years ago by Robert Wood.

The atmosphere also has massive convectional motion driven by the Sun which (somewhat to my surprise) is completely ignored in those idiot cartoons by Trenberth which treats the Earth’s atmosphere as if it was made of lucite. The circulation of the oceans is an even bigger thermodynamic engine driven by the Sun.

I’m afraid you have failed to grasp the main criticism of the greenhouse gas hypothesis – the atmosphere is not restrained from convecting.

Why does it not get so cold at night? Because of water vapour in the atmosphere. Not because water vapour is “a powerful greenhouse gas” whatever that means, but because in the atmosphere water vapour changes state from gas to liquid as it cools and liquid to gas as it heats up. Thus some of the energy from the sun is captured in the latent heat of vaporization (NOT “re-radiated”) of water backwards and forwards from gas to liquid to gas. The heat captured by water condensing in the atmosphere during the day is transported to the nightside (by the rotation of the earth) where the loss of the Sun is compensated by emission of heat as water evaporates and re-emission of heat as water condenses higher up.

It is the water vapour effect of retaining heat by constant cycling from liquid to gas to liquid that slows the re-emission of heat energy back into space, not “re-radiation”. Water vapour clouds glow in IR because of this effect, which is why they can be pictured at night from satellites.

The more water vapour in the atmosphere (as in the tropics) the greater this heat trapping in clouds becomes.

It explains why the greatest difference between day and night temperatures occurs in the major deserts where water vapour in the atmosphere is scarce. It also explains why the difference between day and night on Mars is even more extreme than the Earth despite having eight times the partial pressure of CO2 at the surface than the Earth – its the lack of heat energy “trapped” by water vapour of which Mars has very little, from changing state in the atmosphere in the form of clouds.





“If you’ve done your arithmetic correctly, you should have come up with something like 255 K. But with the atmosphere, it is about 288 K, 33 degrees warmer. This is the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.”

I politely disagree. That 255K has been obtained by blackbody calculation, but confusingly with present Earth’s albedo (which is predominantly made by clouds and snow/ice). Look at the nearby Moon with albedo 0.11 (Earth has ~0.3): its average temperature is 270K.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
So for start, 288-270K = 18K is more correct.

Second, this temperature difference is because of existence of ATMOSPHERE, not greenhouse gases. It is easy to show, that on Earth, the main “greenhouse gas”, water vapor in various states, effectively cools the Earth: a) by clouds, creating major part of albedo, b) by evaporative cooling, preventing all Earth being hot as dry deserts, c) by ice/snow, participating on albedo.

Mere greenhouse gases in a thin atmosphere create no “greenhouse” effect. Mars atmosphere consists of 95% CO2 – but Mars blackbody T = Mars actual T = 210K.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

You need a bulk atmosphere (in our case composed of N2 and O2) and water in liquid/vapor state to get habitable conditions with mild diurnal cycle and pleasant average temperature. Our nights are warmer than on the Moon not because of “backradiation”, but mainly because the atmosphere holds the daily heat. “Backradiation” on Mars does NOTHING, and the effective concentration of CO2 there (6,000 ppm) is that of CO2+water vapor on Earth (if water vapor creates 90% of GHE).

In my chemist opinion, the greenhouse theory confuses the simple heat storage in the atmospheric mass with hypothetical arrows in radiation diagrams.

Not to forget, how do I know the IR radiation is coming from IR active gas, and not from nitrogen/oxygen bulk atmosphere? That forgotten 99% of the atmosphere radiates in IR spectrum, as every material with its temperature above zero K.

Are climate modelers scientists



A scientist is a person with common sense who is very skeptical about every conclusion (hypothesis) presented by scientists, including his own conclusions. A degree is not relevant — the quality of his scientific work determines whether he deserves to be called a “scientist”.
.
Predicting the future with computer games, has nothing to do with science.

A scientist would never focus on ONLY one variable, CO2, probably a very minor variable with no correlation with average temperature, when there are dozens of variables affecting Earth’s climate … and then further focus only on manmade CO2, for political reasons (only that 3% of all atmospheric CO2 can be blamed on humans … which is the goal of climate modelers … along with getting more government grants.)

But Big Government, who wants a “crisis” that must be “solved” by increasing government power over the private sector, could not possibly influence scientists getting government grants and/or salaries, and of course NEVER has to be disclosed as part of an article, white paper or other report by any scientist on the goobermint dole.

Profile

oldephartte
oldephartte

Latest Month

February 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com