Page 1 of 292 1 2 3 ... 291 292 >
Topic Options
#44740 - 28/02/2008 19:52 AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
windyrob Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 02/12/2007
Posts: 484
Loc: edithvale
I'm dead serious folks! We are not talking about statistics but cold hard physics, maths & logic with proven experiment data to back it up. I figured out the flaw myself with simple logic that any high school science and maths student should have. Here is an in depth paper i found today if you want a good read!
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

now for a basic explanation of the flaw from the top!
as everyone is aware the AGW theorist correlate the increasing rate of temperature rise with the increasing rate of CO2 production by humans.
Problem 1/ CO2 energy absorption has a logarithmic relationship with C02 concentration. This is easy to calculate from experiment and is the exact opposite of the exponential temp increase the AGW theory predicts. At this point the correlation should have been dismissed as coincidence except people sometimes have a problem letting go of things. So instead they figured that to make theory fit the curve there must be some positive feedback operating. They came up with water vapor positive feedback theory. According to AGW the tiny amount of heating caused by CO2 will evaporate water causing more greenhouse heating which will evaporate wore water causing more heating and so on and so on! Now they have exponential curve that fits but unfortunately they also have a serious flaws in their theory! Can anyone see it yet? they have just turned water vapor into an explosive device with CO2 as the spark that lights the fuse. In fact because the trigger for this runaway reaction is heat it can be shown that any magnitude of heating caused by any mechanism will cause a chain reaction of water vapor generation which wont stop until all the water on earth has turned into steam. Hello Venus no 2! If that wasn't enough then you can also show that by adding 1 molecule of CO2 and the removing it again the world will still boil! :cheers:

Top
#44741 - 29/02/2008 10:10 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
After reading the paper above, I was struck with the similarity of the CO2 argument put forward by a friend of mine in a friendly debate between two of my of friends that I listened to couple of weeks ago.
One was a consultant on environmental matters that arose in the legal system and was a committed but rational believer in AGW climate change.
The other was a thoroughly committed environmentalist that I have tangled with on occasions and was also a consultant on green house gas emissions.
His last job before his recent retirement was a project manager on a $100 million gas emissions control project for power stations so he knows the green house gas business backwards.
He was totally scathing about the whole CO2 AGW climate warming and climate disaster scenario as painted by the climate activists.
He had independently done the entire exercise on the effects of CO2 in climate warming for himself and from listening to his arguments during the above discussion, he claimed a very similar scenario on the effects of CO2 on the climate as the above paper outlines.
The characteristics of CO2 absorption and transmission and the atmospheric characteristics simply do not support even a fraction of the claims being made by the CO2 AGW ideologists.
My friend is a very mild mannered gentleman but was really scathing about the wild projections on global warming that are being put about by the AGW ideologists.
I must admit that coming from such a dedicated environmentalist, I was really surprised at my friend's viewpoint.
My other legal environmental consultant just had no answers to the arguments put forward.
It seems that there is now an increasing body of science based information coming forward that is increasingly showing up the whole CO2 AGW theory and the future projections based on this theory as just another over hyped and under researched and unsubstantiated climate activist's vechile for self promotion.

Top
#44742 - 29/02/2008 10:38 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
Windyrob climate science has known for a century that the greenhouse impacts of CO2 decline with CO2 concentration. This is nothing new and explicit in all projections. That's why it's hard to get a runaway greenhouse effect...

Given that it is now a record 14 years since the planet has had a below average temperature I wouldn't be rushing to bury AGW just yet. We are at solar minimum, we have a strong La Nina, and we had the snowiest January on record in the northern hemisphere due to a series of very unusual storms a long way south and yet the globe could not get down to average eek . Just wait to the sun returns to normal, La Nina disappears and all that paper thin sea ice in the Arctic melts.

Anyone want to guess what will happen to temperatures?

Top
#44743 - 29/02/2008 11:46 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
bigwilly Offline
Weatherzone Mod and Photog

Registered: 25/09/2002
Posts: 6543
Loc: Junee - just north of the 'Bid...
From my very limited and basic understanding, your first paragraph, David, is quite arbitrary and serves only to point out an obvious cause/effect relationship.

"...the greenhouse impacts of CO2 decline with C02 concentration."

I would have thought it only makes sense that the impact of any gas would decline as the concentration decreases?

The issue is what that impact is, is it not?

And further your second paragraph seems to have missed it's mark in terms of relevance to the topic at hand.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the planet is not warming. What's being discussed are the causes for the warming. This is explicitly clear in the title of the thread "AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed" not "GW theory seems to be fatally flawed".

I'm not having a go at you, it's just that almost every topic on GW seems to degenerate into mud-throwing circles of I'm right and you're wrong and it usually begins with a single wayward post. And yours could be it.

:cheers: Will
_________________________
YTD Rainfall = 281.0mm (Avg to March 117.0mm)
MTD rainfall March = 34.7mm(Avg 41.3mm)
February 2011 total = 203.9mm (Avg 37.8mm)
2010 Rainfall: 759.3mm (Annual Avg: 521.5mm)

Top
#44744 - 29/02/2008 12:32 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
.... Offline
Occasional Visitor

Registered: 23/09/2001
Posts: 5018
Hey BW

My take on David's opening line is that he saying that as CO2 increase the additional impact on the environment is increasingly limited...So for example say you got to twice the historical concentration then every additional ton of CO2 would still have an impact but it would be less of an impact than it would have been before levels started to increase.

Interesting 2nd point you highlight though...Hope this debate can run smoothly so I can watch it develop and learn more on the subject.

Top
#44745 - 29/02/2008 12:37 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
bigwilly Offline
Weatherzone Mod and Photog

Registered: 25/09/2002
Posts: 6543
Loc: Junee - just north of the 'Bid...
Ahh yeah that makes sense BN, probably could have been worded dumber for those like myself :p

I too hope it can run smoothly. The topic is really quite interesting and a different take on the usual AGW threads.

:cheers: Will
_________________________
YTD Rainfall = 281.0mm (Avg to March 117.0mm)
MTD rainfall March = 34.7mm(Avg 41.3mm)
February 2011 total = 203.9mm (Avg 37.8mm)
2010 Rainfall: 759.3mm (Annual Avg: 521.5mm)

Top
#44746 - 29/02/2008 12:42 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
Will I have no interest in another long thread.

To be precise precise... The increment in direct radiative forcing due to each increment in CO2 reduces as CO2 concentrations increase.

This is not the same as the warming being logarithmic in CO2. It is not because some feedbacks are exponential in CO2 - such as the water vapour feedback. Further, the rate of warming is almost independent of CO2 concentrations/concentration increases on periods less than 30 years as it is caused by accumulated planetary radiation imbalance (not CO2 concentration or CO2 concentration increase per se). The easiest way to see this imbalance is to look at sea level which is rising almost monotonically (remember that nearly 100% of the heat from the enhanced greenhouse effect goes to warming the oceans and melting ice as the atmosphere has such a low thermal inertia).

This means that for the next 30 years it makes virtually no difference whether we emit more or less CO2. Our fate is sealed by past CO2 emissions and the inability of the oceans to catch up with that accumulated warming.

2005 was the hottest year we have ever measured on this planet, January 2007 was the hottest month we have ever measured on this planet, sea level ATM is the highest we have ever measured it (outside of an EL Nino) and yet we are kidding ourselves that a few snowstorms in China and chilly days in Victoria suggest AGW isn't happening?

Top
#44747 - 29/02/2008 13:34 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Carl Smith Offline
Member

Registered: 21/12/2001
Posts: 1042
Loc: Gold Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by David:
Given that it is now a record 14 years since the planet has had a below average temperature I wouldn't be rushing to bury AGW just yet. We are at solar minimum, we have a strong La Nina, and we had the snowiest January on record in the northern hemisphere due to a series of very unusual storms a long way south and yet the globe could not get down to average eek . Just wait to the sun returns to normal, La Nina disappears and all that paper thin sea ice in the Arctic melts.

Anyone want to guess what will happen to temperatures?
Perhaps David should enlighten us by explaining what particular "average" he's talking about, and which particular dataset he is using, as his claim is meaningless without this information.

However we can have a look at the data for ourselves.

In his Watts Up With That blog, Anthony Watts examined each of the main datasets as the Jan 08 results came out - I am presenting Anthony’s graphs below beneath a headline linking to the accompanying article on Anthony’s blog.

RSS Satellite data for Jan08: 2nd coldest January for the planet in 15 years:




UAH Satellite data for Jan08 in agreement with RSS data:




GISS Land-Ocean Index dives in Jan08, exceeding drops for UAH and RSS satellite data:



Another Global Temp Index Dives in Jan08, this time HadCRUT:



From this, it is immediately apparent that both satellite data sets show the Jan anom as a smidgin below 0, while both surface datasets show it is a smidgen above 0.

Code:
RSS:     -0.08C  from "average"
UAH:     -0.044C from "average"
GISS:    +0.12C  from "average"
HadCRUT: +0.037C from "average"
But wait .... before jumping to conclusions, note that the "average" in the list above means the average of the base period of the particular dataset, and it is up to the producer of each of the datasets to define their own base period - there are different base periods in use among these datasets, so "average" means different things.

All the data needs to normalised to the same base period before meaningful comparisons can be made, which may be the subject of a future post.

However, we have the numbers for the temperature drop from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008, and can use this for comparisons:

Code:
RSS:     -0.629C
UAH:     -0.588C
GISS:    -0.75C
HadCRUT: -0.595C
----------------
Av:      -0.641C
----------------
So, as the claim is often made that the average warming in the 20th century is 0.7 to 0.8C, we can see here that a large portion of that rise has been wiped out in a single year ... yes I know, apples to oranges (with climate trends sudden swings are smoothed out in the time domain) ... but it is nevertheless interesting that a single year can make that much difference!

As to the future?

Well, increasing numbers of solar scientists are becoming concerned that "the Sun has crashed", meaning it is in a prolonged period of low activity, and will not rise out of it anytime soon. The best estimates of the next solar max indicate it will most likely be less active than any solar max for over 100 years, and there are indications it may be followed by another three to five cycles of even lower activity.

So David, we may be waiting for a very long time before the Sun gets back to anywhere near the 20th century "normal" again!

As long as the Sun remains quiet, the ENSO indicators will most likely remain on the La Nina side of zero, and as I doubt we will see much solar activity before mid to late 2009 or even 2010, I cannot see the planet switching back to an El Nino driven warming phase for some time yet.

In the meantime, watch as global temps continue on a downwards trend, cold records continue to get smashed, and winters continue being very severe for many living in higher latitudes through 2008, much of 2009, and perhaps into 2010 - which raises some obvious questions:

Are we now entering the next "little ice age"?
Should we be preparing for future cooling rather than future warming?

Top
#44748 - 29/02/2008 13:50 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
bigwilly Offline
Weatherzone Mod and Photog

Registered: 25/09/2002
Posts: 6543
Loc: Junee - just north of the 'Bid...
And so begins the "I'm right, you're wrong"... :rolleyes:

David, if you'd explained like the first time it would have cleared up all the confusion :p

:cheers: Will
_________________________
YTD Rainfall = 281.0mm (Avg to March 117.0mm)
MTD rainfall March = 34.7mm(Avg 41.3mm)
February 2011 total = 203.9mm (Avg 37.8mm)
2010 Rainfall: 759.3mm (Annual Avg: 521.5mm)

Top
#44749 - 29/02/2008 14:09 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Blizzard Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 31/03/2001
Posts: 10341
Loc: Blue Mountains
I'm with Will, its a bloody shame that we can't just exchange ideas here. Its not a competition but an opportunity to learn, to progressively understand what is happening as more knowledge comes to hand.

No doubt this thread will close as the finger pointing progresses and name calling ensues. I think we are losing the ability in the modern world to debate issues constructively...

Carl, anything more info you have on the suns lower activity would be good to read and I look forward to counter points of view if it can be done maturely. If it can't be done in this thread, I would consider hosting and posting some of the discussion on my site.
_________________________
BoM Storm Spotter, snow chaser, webmaster for www.blackheathweather.com

Top
#44750 - 29/02/2008 15:44 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
---- Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 25/11/2002
Posts: 5786
Bit off topic, but your website is looking great Blizz!! Good job mate. smile
I wish I could contribute knowledgeably to this thread, but I will still follow and read it with much fervor. Like you I don't want to see it degenerate into a slanging match along the lines of religious combativenesses.

Top
#44751 - 29/02/2008 17:21 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Blizzard Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 31/03/2001
Posts: 10341
Loc: Blue Mountains
Thanks pepsi-max!

I find some of the records below pretty impressive. Do others? Look at how many sites are going for probable records in NSW/ACT. There's a few sites there with 89 and 95 and 126 years of records. Even beyond the records, plenty of other sites are impressively below the long term average.

Monthly summaries for NSW/ACT

I must say, I wasn't expecting such an emphatically cool Feb. I'm not sure if it will continue as per Carls considerations but it is interesting.
_________________________
BoM Storm Spotter, snow chaser, webmaster for www.blackheathweather.com

Top
#44752 - 29/02/2008 18:23 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Long Road Home Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 08/10/2007
Posts: 8265
Loc: Northern Beaches Syd
Heres an article worth a read (one of the links from what Sean M posted in the other thread)

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_La_Nina_and_Global_Cooling.pdf

Top
#44753 - 29/02/2008 19:02 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Mike Hauber Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 2457
Loc: Buderim
If AGW is so fatally flawed why does Windyrob feel the need to pose 3 separate flaws in this theory, 2 of which are in contradiction? Are all three needed to disprove the theory? Or is this an attempt at proving correctness by weight of argument? One of the difficulties I find with this argument is that skeptics feel free to throw up many different arguments, not even considering if the arguments are consistent. If you take the necessary time to refute one it is easy to skip to another.

Argument 1: Here is a paper that disproves AGW - http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Counter: This paper estimates that the amount of warming we get from doubling CO2 is between 1.49 and 2.03 degrees. This is done by observing the historical change in temperature and assuming that this relates exactly to the change in Co2. This method is reasonable, but innacurate to whatever extent other factors have influcnced climate, and to any extent that Co2 has caused a warming that has not yet been measured due to lag factors.

And how does this compare with IPCC calculated climate sensitivity? To quote wikipedia, Co2 sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Argument 2: Assume water vapour is a feedback, if Co2 causes temperatures to warm a little, then this will cause increased water vapour. Increased water causes increased warming. Therefore the increased warming continues to feedback with no limit. As we observe that this doesn't happen, water vapour cannot be a feedback.

Counter: Feedback can be circular without running away out of control. Consider amplification of any stringed instrument. The amplification will cause sound waves in the air. These sound waves will then cause the string to vibrate, making the instrument louder. In some cases with extreme amplification this will become a runaway reaction, the effect been used to create what some class as music and others class as mindless noise by certain guitarists. However in other cases the effect does not run out of control, and the instrument can play normally, if a little louder than it would have been without the feedback.

Note that argument 1 and 2 are not consistent. The paper referred to in 1 states that water vapour is a feedback.

Argument 3: It has cooled recently. Global warming is over.

Counter: Yes we have cooling below the long term trend. However we are no further below the long trend than we were above the long term trend during the peak of the el nino in 1998. The unusual heat in 1998 did not signify a change from a gradual warming trend to a doomsday accelerated warming trend. And the unusual cool so far does not signify a change to a new cooling trend.

Top
#44754 - 29/02/2008 19:06 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Mike Hauber Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 2457
Loc: Buderim
Carl,

are you willing to commit to and stand by a prediction that the rest of the 2008 will be on average cooler than January 20008. Can we call you on a failed prediction in 12 months time if this doesn't happen? Or is this just a bit of a guess, and you would have a ready explanation if it does get warmer during the rest of 2008.

Edit: For the record, if the average temperature anomoly for 2008 is lower than the temperature anomoly for January 2008, I would consider that I have to reassess in some way what I believe about AGW. I would of course first be looking for an explanation such as an unexpectedly strengthed la nina, or a volcanic eruption.

Top
#44755 - 29/02/2008 23:00 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3906
Quote:
No doubt this thread will close as the finger pointing progresses and name calling ensues
Quote:
Can we call you on a failed prediction in 12 months time if this doesn't happen? Or is this just a bit of a guess, and you would have a ready explanation...if it lasts...
smile

All fun aside…

We all make predictions and have opinions. This is the manifestation of intelligence and that which raises us above all other species on the planet. Some of these are based on experience like Blizz’s quote above and some are influenced by what we would like to happen like Carl’s. Whether Carl is right or wrong is immaterial in the big scheme of things. However, simply questioning his right to make a prediction or voice an opinion is extremely antagonistic – and is typically the reason why Blizz is right.

Science is all about predictions. However, there are two problems with predictions: One is that you can’t prove/disprove it until such time as whatever is predicted occurs or not. The other is that even if a prediction is right, it does not actually mean that the method used to make the prediction is replicable (i.e. a lucky guess).

Any “scientific” theory [B]HAS[B] to make replicable and testable predictions. This is a good prediction:

Quote:
Prof. Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said: "Phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña have a significant influence on global surface temperature and the current strong La Niña will act to limit temperatures in 2008. However, mean temperature is still expected to be significantly warmer than in 2000, when a similar strength La Niña pegged temperatures to 0.24 °C above the 1961-90 average."
It also has to be testable in convenient timeframes. This is not really a testable prediction:

Quote:
are you willing to commit to and stand by a prediction that the rest of the 2008 will be on average cooler than January 20008
(Hey I’ll take that one on – the risk of me being around in 18,000 years is pretty slim… smile )

So, this is a rather longwinded way of saying – let’s look at the science, and leave the personal stuff out of this? Rather than antagnising Carl, why not just look at the science? Ssee what it predicts and compare with observation. The Hadley prediction is a beautiful example as a case in point.

The prediction from Hadley above is an unambiguous prediction that 2008 is going to be warmer than 2000 - note the word "significantly". These teo years are comparable: There is a similar strength La Nina occurring now (from June the Multivariate ENSO index is just about the same); and (at time of prediction) the temperature (in December 2008) was almost the same as that in January 2000. There are of course differences: 2000 was the second year of a La Nina (and thus the global temps were already suppressed) whilst January 2007 was the hottest month on record; and 2000 was near solar maximum whilst now we are near minimum.

The following is a graph that I will be updating over the course of the year:


This prediction was made with the assistance of the latest and best coupled ocean-atmospheric GCM(s). If the 2008 yearly average is at or just above that in 2000, the GCM gets a conceded pass. If it is near to or above 0.1C greater than the 2000 average (a value I consider "significant" for no other reason than that it fits with the 0.12C decadal warming trend – it gets the big tick. If it is under the 2000 average, doubt as to its accuracy must be entertained. If Carl’s prediction eventuates (for whatever reason) and the entire 2008 is like or lower than January, there will of course be no doubt as to the accuracy of the GCM.

Even if Carl’s 2008 prediction eventuates, it of course won’t disprove AGW – one year does not climate trend make. However, three more years 2009 / 2010… and the GHG warming models will have to considered in need of revision. The 0.12C decadal trend will have disapeared over a time period equivalent to an entire solar cycle.

peace

Arnost

By the way – this is a pretty offensive thread title really for one side of the argument…
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#44756 - 01/03/2008 08:38 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
Carl the RSS and UAH records commence after the globe had already experienced 80 years of global warming (ie add 0.5C to these). These data also don't include the poles, and are biased by changes in humidity, and the expansion of thickness levels.

The surface data all show that even with the freakish weather of last month and the cool sun and the strong La Nina we can't get back to average - global warming which has accumlated over a century looks to have overwhelmed the ability of our planet to even get back to average. This is not a case of I'm right or your wrong. It's what the data say's.

Top
#44757 - 01/03/2008 08:49 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Blizzard Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 31/03/2001
Posts: 10341
Loc: Blue Mountains
Good onya Arnost. smile My father in law is a world renown scientist in his field and he says the bickering is so pervasive its ridiculous. Science is as much about character as it is about research and predictions. A good scientists is a lateral and collaborative thinker and is able to sit with notions and ideas that are quite different to his/her own.

In saying that, I do think that the general trend will be towards warming over coming years and decades based on what I know at the moment. Still, I am keen to see what developments unfold and its enjoyable to discuss it. I do agree that the title is somewhat provocative but I'm sure for the moment, we can sit with that without too much discomfort.
_________________________
BoM Storm Spotter, snow chaser, webmaster for www.blackheathweather.com

Top
#44758 - 01/03/2008 13:08 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
TranslucidusW Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 18/11/2003
Posts: 2661
Loc: Southern Adelaide
I think at this point the title can be seen as a useful discussion starter - that's all. It's not really provocative if viewed with Dignity and Decorum !

Perhaps also weather is one unfortunate/interesting/impossible area of science in which proposing a theory (or projecting a model) and then experimenting to prove/disprove it is impossible generally given the time scales involved.

This aspect plus vested interests (in some cases) has led to the muddy waters of dispute rather than the clear waters of (Arnost:) "Science is as much about character as it is about research and predictions".

I would add that it is too easy to Google and find something that supports a view and also find something that doesn't; all in the same 5 minutes. This is NOT science.

A scientist or Contributor with Character is disassociated from having to be right or wrong and strongly associated with the progression towards discovery of the reality.

To take a stand for one particular view before its outcome has occurred is (in terms of intelligence) flawed.

To stand Nowhere and offer intelligent input with Humility is WISE.

:cheers:
_________________________
I don't know anything . . .
Sheidow Park Weather




Top
#44759 - 01/03/2008 13:16 Re: AGW theory seems to be fatally flawed.
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
I don't think the title's really an issue. It says AGW seems to be flawed. Apart from maybe putting a question mark at the end, are we too politically correct these days to make any assertions at all, for fear that those who think they know it all will take us to task yet again?

Top
Page 1 of 292 1 2 3 ... 291 292 >


Who's Online
55 registered (rainmore, slipperyfish, Wrasse42, AKM80, camtsv, Majors Daughter, Squeako_88, aloahjay, Steve O, Eevo, petethemoskeet, Drought declared, Simmo FNQ, Steven, Ticktock, Chris Stumer, mysteriousbrad, FujiWha, Red Watch, Fairdinkum, James Chambers, rainiac, cold@28, Brett Guy, Snapper22lb, Inclement Weather, Corretto, redbucket, dizzigirl1, Pama, Aussea, Snowy Hibbo, Purnong, Dan101, MoonLight, Mike Hauber, Amatuerish, whatscracken, WANDJINA G'vale, Sepo, iluvrain, Jettnewfoundland, Stazza_Brendan, StormQueen, Wave Rider, ThunderBob, justme, Timbuck, bber36, bundybear, james1977, Tel, whynot, 2 invisible), 557 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Boy from the Bush, DerekHV, JL, reffy, spinner
Forum Stats
29193 Members
32 Forums
23563 Topics
1446331 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image