Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here' thread

[Edited January 2 2019 -- to remove or replace dead visual-links]

Long ago Jonathan and I got some good traction out of a tangle of issues related to Global Warming slash Climate Change.  I think we are slated to renew or refresh our earlier exchanges.  I am going to poke in links to some he-said/he-saids from a few different threads at different times. One feature of the updated software is an automated 'sampling' of a link posted raw.  See below. 

So this blog entry will be kind of administrative-technical while being built and edited. I haven't figured out if Jonathan and I should impose some 'rules' going in, so your comment may be subject to arbitrary deletion before the field is ready for play. Fan notes included.

Study-links-Greenland-melting-with-Arctic-amplification.jpg

globalWarmingPEWpolarization.png

Adam, see what you think of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, especially the revealing map-based representations of opinion. You can drill and zoom down to state, county, district level to track data across a number of survey questions, where some of the answers are surprising. On some measures at least, the thing it is not found only in the UK, Quebec, Canada: Here's a snapshot of several maps which do not always show an expected Red State/Blue State pattern;

[images updated January 2 2019; click and go images]

2018YaleClimateOpinionMaps.png

personalHarmYaleCC.png

[Deleted image-link]

Edited  by william.scherk

 

Plug my How To Get Where I Got book of books, Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. Insert link to Amazon, Library link, and to the intro chapter of Weart's companion website to the book. Make sure you include a link to Ellen's mention of a book review. 

Bob Kolker's June 3 comment is a good hinge. What do we (J and I) think we know about the mechanism Bob sketches? What can we 'stipulate' or what can we agree on, for the sake of argument?

On 6/3/2016 at 9:31 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

CO2 does  slow down the radiation of energy in the infra-red bandwith.  The question is to what degree  given that there are other systems that tend to diffuse and disperse heat (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino, along with convection and the Coriolis Effect that moves warm are to the polar regions).  The scientific fact is that CO2 tends to absorb radiated energy in the infra red range.  That is NOT fabricated.  That is a matter of experimental fact. 

Please see http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

The issue is to what extent is the CO2 load of the atmosphere is slowing down heat radiation into space, when such absorbing or radiation occurs along with other heat dispersing processes.   

No denies that putting a blanket on, when it is cold slows down the rate at which one's body radiates heat.  Air is a poor heat conductor and the blanket traps air.  Also the blanket is warmed and radiates half its heat back to the source.  This produces a net slowing down of heat loss.  Heat loss still occurs (Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation)  but the rate of loss is affected. 

Tyndol and Arhenius  established the heat absorbing properties of CO2  in the late 19 th and early 20 th century.  Subsequent work has show the absorbtion to be the case and has measured it even more accurately than Tyndol and Arhenius. 

 

 

arctic1.jpg



719 Comments


Recommended Comments



2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It usually begins with John Tyndall. 

 

What usually begins with John Tyndall?

Is it the answers to my questions? If so, cool! Let's hear them.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

What usually begins with John Tyndall?

Is it the answers to my questions? If so, cool! Let's hear them.

J

You’re impossible to converse with, Jonathan, due to your ignorance of Tyndall. So first you have to master Tyndall’s work like Billy has, right, Billy? Any minute now you are going to write at length in your own words about Tyndall’s work and how it lays the base for answering Jonathan’s questions, right?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Tyndall_setup_for_looking_at_aerosols.jp

Quote

John Tyndall's illustration of his setup for looking at aerosols (1868), subsequently annotated in colored typeface. The above apparatus is meant to be looked at in a dark room, i.e., a room with no light except for the illuminated glass tube at the center of the picture. Its basic idea is to bring a chemical vapor into the illuminated glass tube by a suction pump (the suction pump is under the table). The illustration dates from 1868. With this apparatus John Tyndall found that a variety of vapors, initially clear and transparent to light, became cloudy with more exposure to the light due to chemical decomposition of the vapor molecules. He verified that it was the light itself that caused this decomposition. The chemical reaction in response to the light was in some cases rapid (e.g. when the vapor was amyl nitrite) and in other cases very gradual (e.g. when the vapor was isopropyl iodide). Some vapors formed white clouds, others formed blue or purple clouds. The clouds took on distinctive shapes and swirled in "paroxysms of motion", in some cases. Tyndall demonstrated that the particular wavelengths that produced a photochemical decomposition depended on the particular type of vapor molecule that was decomposed, although in all cases the light was predominantly or exclusively in the blue and near UV area. Tyndall uses these photochemical reactions as context for talking about the question of the mechanism by which molecules absorb radiant energy. The illustration is in Tyndall's report "New Chemical Reactions Produced by Light" (1868) and again in Tyndall's "On the Action of Rays of High Refrangibility upon Gaseous Matter" (1870). It is also included in the later editions of his book Heat as a Mode of Motion even though it is not a heat phenomenon.

Spoiler

...

...

...

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Palm trees. Hawaiian like nights. I can dig it. Though I do appreciate Air conditioning. Here it is going to be in the 90's for a few days with high humidity. Last night it was 77 with 96 percent humidity around 10pm and it felt like 100. I Cranked the AC down to 62 and slept with a sheet and two light blankets. Around 3 I must have pulled a quilt over me but by 4am I remember pulling it off and sweating between my . . . er. forget that. 

Here is a stupefying question. Could, would humans prefer living without heat or AC? I could live without heat, and dress like a Brit, and have a goose down bed with quilts, but I would hate living without AC. This message was brought to you by Trogolytes United.  

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Tyndall_setup_for_looking_at_aerosols.jp

  Reveal hidden contents

...

...

...

 

 

And?

When do we get the part where my questions are answered?

How about you just skip ahead to that part?

Heh. No? Still not able to answer the questions, so you're back to the game of posing as professor who is going to instruct the rubes about everything except the questions they've asked?

Rather pathetic, Billy.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Recursion comes on its own schedule: Tyndall mentions on OL.

Re-reading earlier commentary might indicate an avenue toward basic agreements, or agreed basics or agreement on key 'findings.'  Much of the superstructure of climatology rests on atmospheric chemistry/radiative physics ... Tyndall was one of the handful of pioneering inquirers who 'cracked the code' or demonstrated physical explanations for how the Earth maintained its "radiative budget" ...

Bob has intelligently laid out this platform of 'findings' several times.  I recommend a kind of 'foundational' question posed to self: "Is there an agreed-up set of 'findings'" even for folks who may disagree mightily on entailments. Or 'Did Tyndall "get it right"?' ... 

**************************

Or, forty-six minutes of seemingly alarmed coverage of the Arctic summer 2019.  In a nutshell, some dramatic pronouncements. Is a "Tyndall gases effect" in part responsible for the amplification and other recently-observed phenomena?

I am otherwise lazy enough to plug in the link via Twitter. The first is my pinned tweet and below that is a link to the WBUR 46min rant-etcetera.

Tiresome Weart reading-suggestion #34:

Tyndall_from_Weart_Aug_18.png

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
18 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Recursion comes on its own schedule: Tyndall mentions on OL.

Re-reading earlier commentary might indicate an avenue toward basic agreements, or agreed basics or agreement on key 'findings.'  Much of the superstructure of climatology rests on atmospheric chemistry/radiative physics ... Tyndall was one of the handful of pioneering inquirers who 'cracked the code' or demonstrated physical explanations for how the Earth maintained its "radiative budget" ...

Bob has intelligently laid out this platform of 'findings' several times.  I recommend a kind of 'foundational' question posed to self: "Is there an agreed-up set of 'findings'" even for folks who may disagree mightily on entailments. Or 'Did Tyndall "get it right"?' 

The questions of mine that you’ve been dodging address all of that, Billy. Drop the professor pose and the discussion leader/moderator ploy. You don’t want a discussion. You can’t handle a discussion. Buh, buh, but, perhaps we can find an avenue forward in which Billy instructs us what to do and how to think, and we can find common ground agreement in avoiding those icky questions that Jonathan asked and that Billy can’t answer?

Billy, what is it about my questions that makes you think that we need instruction in climatological superstructure, radiative physics, etc.? I’ve simply asked you to demonstrate successful predictions via the scientific method. And somehow my doing so suggests to you that you need to give us a presumptuous little course on Tyndall rather than demonstrating the successful predictions? Hahaha!

Share this comment


Link to comment

Hello? Billy?

Are you pouting?

You really, really badly want to pontificate on John Tyndall, but your glorious parade was rained upon?

I'm sorry, pumpkin.

So, let's have your little Tyndall party!!! Yay!!!

Happy Tyndall Day, Billy! Tell us all about him!

Did he make any predictions about global warming? Did those predictions come true in reality? Did he take a position on man-made climate change, hypothesize that man's activities would result in certain specific temperature increases, and then successfully predict future outcomes in reality?

I know, I know. Predictions are icky. But they're a part of grownup science, Billy. You can't have your exciting doom and your controlling other people if you don't have successful predictions first.

Okay, so can we get past Tyndall now? What's next? Let's pick up the pace, okay? What's the next very important non-answer to my questions that we need to explore in-depth?

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

The pupil has not demonstrated an understanding of “tiresome reading suggestion #34.”

So much for in his own words. Worst fake professor ever. Cartman is a better fake cop. Cartman fakes having been in ‘Nam better than this.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

We need to find pathways that indicate possible corridors that might lead toward avenues which will take us to the boulevard of agreement. Let’s see if we can find a foundation near that boulevard on which to establish a platform where we can place our gathered findings to discover if we all agree that they are indeed findings. But first, let’s make more hoops. We need many more hoops to jump through. Place them between us and the questions that Jonathan has asked. Hoops of every size and color. Line them on the pathways, corridors, and avenues. Hoops and more hoops, everywhere! Then let’s hypothesize about the hoops, and research everything about them. What’s the best material out of which to make hoops? Can we find a pathway to a corridor that leads to an avenue which will take us to the boulevard of agreement about the best material for hoops? I’m certain that we can.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Yes, pathways that indicate corridors that lead to avenues.

And he should ask you what your peer groups worry about most right now. And if the answer is neither global warming nor white supremacy, he should project acceptance and understanding and keep looking for the avenues.

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 8/18/2019 at 12:51 PM, william.scherk said:

Tyndall_setup_for_looking_at_aerosols.jp

  Reveal hidden contents

...

...

...

 

 

Tyndall's Experiment was brilliant.  He got his results before Boltzmann discovered the mechanism of gas heating.   We really did not understand black body radiation until Planck using Boltzmann's statistical approach  figured out what happens.  When Tyndall did his experiment in 1859  no one know how gases could absorb and re-radiate heat.   To fully understand this we need the photoelectric effect and Compton effect. This were not established until the 1920's.   Tyndall was really way ahead of his time.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 8/18/2019 at 3:23 PM, william.scherk said:

...an avenue toward basic agreements, or agreed basics or agreement on key 'findings'...

So, below I offer my first 'finding' for our platform on the foundation on the boulevard of agreement.

I've posted this previously here on OL, back when it first came out.

Billy, you had asked if there is an agreed-upon set of 'findings,' even for people who may disagree mightily on entailments. Do you agree that the article below offers an argument that is devastating to the falsehood that it refutes? Do you agree that the article is correct that the method used to arrive at the 97% conclusion is fatally flawed?

 

Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim

Headshot-2.sized-50x50xf.png 
BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019
shutterstock_153806906.sized-770x415xc.j
(Shutterstock)

On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.

"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."

According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"

The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.

The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.

So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.

Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.

See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).

But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.

The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.

He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming.

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.

Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."

Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."

Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.

The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 8/20/2019 at 8:57 AM, Jonathan said:

Okay, so can we get past Tyndall now?

We could, sure.  But I really can's say I know what you think you know about Tyndall's scientific work.

Quote

What's next?

Same old usual, I expect.

On 8/18/2019 at 1:23 PM, william.scherk said:

Re-reading earlier commentary might indicate an avenue toward basic agreements, or agreed basics or agreement on key 'findings.'  Much of the superstructure of climatology rests on atmospheric chemistry/radiative physics ... Tyndall was one of the handful of pioneering inquirers who 'cracked the code' or demonstrated physical explanations for how the Earth maintained its "radiative budget" ...

Someone might respond: "I know all that, pedophile."  Another might respond with abrasive what-have-you. Another might affix yet another label to my psyche and morality.

On 8/19/2019 at 8:08 AM, Jonathan said:

Billy, what is it about my questions that makes you think that we need instruction in climatological superstructure, radiative physics, etc.?

I disregard posturing and wonder what you know.  As far as I know you have never discussed the GHE, radiative physics, or shown any comprehension of the researches of Tyndall, Arrhenius, Fourier, nor show any comprehension of the scope of climatology as it matured. 

I will just add one more plug for Weart's book online.  

I know how I got to my beliefs about climate change ... in a nutshell, I 'discovered' that the central question was 'how does the Earth maintain its temperature over time?' How does the atmosphere radiate heat energy? What molecules -- which physical processes in the atmosphere are responsible for the maintenance of the 'blanket' effect?  How did all that shit work?  Is CO2 a key essential for the whole shmear?  Does the prediction that increasing atmospheric CO2 in a relatively short term will result in an a relatively-quick increase of the Earth's temperature?

 

Billy says hi. Billy wonders if you would explain how you got here, what your beliefs and understandings are. Billy says he isn't interested in your opinion about him, but is instead interested in, 'what Jonathan believes/knows/suspects/rejects, whether about the basic "Tyndall Gases Effect" and the basic prediction of global warming to come.

I restart at the relative beginning, because I don't see the other guys' cards.  If you or you or you or you do not set aside being all personality, you probably on't get what you want. I exclude Brant because his one-liners are memorable, if not apposite. The William he psychologically-profiles should probably be locked up. 

Here's my one actual question to, say, Jonathan: have any of you ever delved into the Weart book (either in hardback or via the American Institute of Physics website)?

If the Examining Magistrate will allow follow-ups put to the witness: if not, why not? Is Billy's recommendation a kiss of death?

Too many examining magistrates and psychologists can really make the soup hot!  

[ NB, I am almost ready to let this thread die a proper death, by giving it over to the inevitable drift and disappearance. Maybe once a year, during Arctic melt season,  I can come back to check if anyone has changed their costumes or learned some new material.]

[Yes, I am going to lock the topic just to annoy you. Store up that bile for Friday!]

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 8/22/2019 at 1:30 PM, william.scherk said:

[ NB, I am almost ready to let this thread die a proper death, by giving it over to the inevitable drift and disappearance. Maybe once a year, during Arctic melt season,  I can come back to check if anyone has changed their costumes or learned some new material.]

[Yes, I am going to lock the topic just to annoy you. Store up that bile for Friday!]

Interested readers will enjoy a spun-off topic: 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

More actions that don't match words. Do as I say, nor as I do. Good for me, but not for thee.

Internet Wrecks Obamas Over $15 Million Martha’s Vineyard Estate

US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama await the arrival of British Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife, Samantha Cameron, prior to a State Dinner as part of an official visit on the North Portico of the White House in Washington,DC SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images 
August 24, 2019 
 210.1k views

The man who spent eight years lecturing Americans about the evils of wealth and economic inequality, and fear mongered about global warming and climate change is reportedly set to buy a nearly $15 million beachfront Martha's Vineyard estate.

 

According to TMZ, former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are in escrow for the multimillion-dollar mansion currently owned by the NBA's Boston Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck. "The former Prez and First Lady have been renting the house this summer and loved it so much, we've learned they made an offer. The property is listed at $14,850,000. Our sources say they're paying less, but we don't know how much," the report says.

The mansion is nearly 6,900 square feet, complete with seven bedrooms, a pool, outdoor fireplace, second-floor balcony jacuzzi, boathouse, and two guest wings, per TMZ.

The irony of Mr. You-didn't-build-that and At-a-certain-point-you've-made-enough-money himself living so lavishly was not lost on the internet. Nor was the fact that the property is beachfront (with a massive carbon footprint!). If one were to truthfully believe in the climate hysteria echoed by Obama, this purchase would be highly unwise, as the house will surely be underwater in a matter of years.

Founder of the satirical Babylon Bee Adam Ford pointedly posted:

The Federalist’s Inez Stepman mocked, "You didn't build that, guys."

Radio host Mark Simone wrote, "The Obama's totally reject socialism and buy another mega mansion – a $15 million dollar Martha's Vineyard estate that they'll only use a few weeks a year, in an attempt to set a new record for income inequality."

"'At a certain point, you've made enough money.' – guy who got a $65M book deal then bought a 7-bdrm 7,000 sq-foot Martha's Vineyard mansion on 29 acres worth $15 million," the popular Twitter politico known as Razor jabbed.

"If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn't by a $15 million mansion on...Martha's Vineyard," said podcast host Amy Curtis. "Call me crazy, but it doesn't seem like Obama is taking climate change all that seriously."

"Poor investment. Martha's Vineyard is literally going to be swallowed by the ocean if we don't hand over all of our money and freedom to the government to stop Global Warming," snarked Federalist contributor known as the "red-headed libertarian."

"The estate is currently in escrow and it's not a done deal just yet. We're told there are contingencies so it's possible it could fall apart, but we're told so far it's a go," TMZ said.

According to the New York Post, the Obamas recently spent $8.1 million on a nine-bedroom home in Washington, D.C. The Post also noted that Mr. Obama had a $40 million net worth in 2018, and combined with the former First Lady’s wealth, the duoare worth an estimated $135 million.

 
 

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Interested readers will enjoy a spun-off topic: 

 

Hi Billy. Welcome back.

Have you had an opportunity to review my post about the group that is criticizing the false 97% claim?

It's a pretty short and easy to understand argument. Do you grasp it? Do you agree that they have a valid point?

NASA pushed this falsehood, as have many other organizations. It's methodology is ridiculously flawed, yet NASA bought into it and repeated it. Slop. Carelessness. Or worse.

Is it at all disconcerting to you that this garbage made it past the brightest scientists? Is this level of scientific competence acceptable to you, especially from an organization of NASA's prestige? Does it inspire confidence?

J

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Translation: Stop pointing to facts and expecting responses, Jonathan, it is disagreeable and makes conversation impossible. Our conversation will have to consist of you keeping your mouth shut because when you open it you become crazy and disagreeable. Did you read Tyndall yet?

Quite weak. Transparent. Such an asshole.

Share this comment


Link to comment
17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

-- of tangential interest to the two "How I Got Here" threads' participants, perhaps.  Cross-posted from another blog comment.

 

Thanks so much for sharing. Looking forward to your practicing all that you learn from the book.

Cheers,

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Translation: Stop pointing to facts and expecting responses, Jonathan, it is disagreeable and makes conversation impossible. Our conversation will have to consist of you keeping your mouth shut because when you open it you become crazy and disagreeable. Did you read Tyndall yet?

Quite weak. Transparent. Such an asshole.

Clearly, Billy is stumped.

He's in, like, double checkmate right now. He doesn't know what in the hell to do.

He won't let go of his beliefs, so his next-best option is to continue as usual with the same tired tactics.

He's probably searching for another Meatball to come and try to save him, and maybe even hoping that NASA will come out with a statement about being caught in the 97% lie and offer up enough of an authority pose that Billy can repeat it while wishing really hard to believe in it. "Are you a scientist? No? Well, we ARE scientists, we're fucking NASA for Christ's sakes, and we say that it's totally scientific for us to throw out the 7,930 papers. In fact, now that we mention it, fuck you, we're going with 100%, because we just decided to throw out all of the papers except for the ones that take the position that we want to be true. Eat shit and die, science-denying fuckers!"

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...