The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2013, 02:04 PM   #76
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Really? A foot in rise since 1988?
No. 1 foot since ~1850.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 02:06 PM   #77
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Hansen didn't work on the "hockey stick". That was Michael Mann.


The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).

and speaking of hockey sticks...


This graph shows that even at the lowest range of climate sensitivity, future global warming will take us well beyond any temperature experienced during civilised human history. The blue line represents reconstructed temperature (Marcott et al. 2013). The red line represents measured and projected global surface temperature (Meinshausen et al. 2011). The red dots show the projected warming in the year 2100 for three different climate sensitivities (high sensitivity 4.5°C, most likely sensitivity 3°C, low sensitivity 1.5°C). H/T to Joe Romm and Michael Tobis whose work inspired this graph.
And with every one of those spikes, one can hear the conservatives making the case against global warming just as El Minion stated. "See? it's (insert hot or cold)! NO GLOBAL WARMING!", while simultaneously showing the world (and the board) their lack of basic understanding of statistics, sampling, deviation and of course, math and science.

Your first mistake, W*GS, was using graphs. Beavis doesn't like those. Of course, he doesn't like (or understand) science, either...so you're kinda screwed either way.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 02:12 PM   #78
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Hansen didn't work on the "hockey stick". That was Michael Mann.


The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).

and speaking of hockey sticks...


This graph shows that even at the lowest range of climate sensitivity, future global warming will take us well beyond any temperature experienced during civilised human history. The blue line represents reconstructed temperature (Marcott et al. 2013). The red line represents measured and projected global surface temperature (Meinshausen et al. 2011). The red dots show the projected warming in the year 2100 for three different climate sensitivities (high sensitivity 4.5°C, most likely sensitivity 3°C, low sensitivity 1.5°C). H/T to Joe Romm and Michael Tobis whose work inspired this graph.
I think Mann worked off some of Hansen's 'corrected' data if I'm not mistaken. Which was part of the problem.

And what kind of graph doesn't separate measured from projected? You only do that if you're hiding something (or "sampling" things out of existence)

Anyway, "Consensus" is that the warming inexplicably slowed around 15 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/sc...eau.html?_r=1&

Show me where that was predicted in Hansen's model.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 08-22-2013 at 02:19 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 02:38 PM   #79
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I think Mann worked off some of Hansen's 'corrected' data if I'm not mistaken. Which was part of the problem.
Yes, you're mistaken.

Mann and Hansen haven't been professionally affiliated much, if at all.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 03:37 PM   #80
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

Quote:
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...g-controversy/

Quote:
Hansen, clearly frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a “pest” and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories “should be ready to crawl under a rock by now.” Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a “light on upstairs.”
Guy gets proven to have fundamentally effed up Nasa's temperature data and then goes on the personal offensive. I'm sure Wagsy will tell us about how this makes Hacksen eligible for entry in the Eternal Pantheon of Anthropogenic Global Warming Salvation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 08:13 AM   #81
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Guy gets proven to have fundamentally effed up Nasa's temperature data and then goes on the personal offensive. I'm sure Wagsy will tell us about how this makes Hacksen eligible for entry in the Eternal Pantheon of Anthropogenic Global Warming Salvation.
"Fundamentally"? No.

1934 and all that

Quote:
Another week, another ado over nothing.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).


Quote:
There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data [As it existed in Sep 2007]). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant. Indeed in the 2001 paper describing the GISTEMP methodology (which was prior to this particularly error being introduced), it says:

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC – the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version – up to 2005 – can be seen here).

In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere. One of the worst examples (but there are others) was the ‘Opinionator’ at the New York Times (oh dear). He managed to confuse the global means with the continental US numbers, he made up a story about McIntyre having ‘always puzzled about some gaps’ (what?) , declared the the error had ‘played havoc’ with the numbers, and quoted another blogger saying that the ‘astounding’ numbers had been ‘silently released’. None of these statements are true. Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false.

But hey, maybe the Arctic will get the memo.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 08:21 AM   #82
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,999

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Biggest tax hoax in the history of the world - look at which politicians are pushing this. That is all you need to know.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 08:30 AM   #83
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Biggest tax hoax in the history of the world - look at which politicians are pushing this. That is all you need to know.
Yeah, yeah.

Do you deride the M.D.s who discovered the links between smoking and cancer as frauds and being part of a giant hoax because cigarette taxes have been increased over the last few decades?

STFU.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 09:09 AM   #84
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
"Fundamentally"? No.

1934 and all that



Hey Wagsy, what happened to this graph? And why does it look so different from the US Temperature graph you posted above?



Oh, and show me in Hansen's 1988 model where he predicted a 15-year flat spot. (It's fun turning your Gaff tactic back around on you )

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 08-23-2013 at 09:22 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 09:48 AM   #85
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Hey Wagsy, what happened to this graph? And why does it look so different from the US Temperature graph you posted above?
Why don't you write the provider and ask him?

If you believe that there has been, and is continuing to be, a conspiracy to manipulate data to create a fake narrative regarding AGW, well, you're past gaffe and his 9/11 troofer stuff. Very far past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Oh, and show me in Hansen's 1988 model where he predicted a 15-year flat spot. (It's fun turning your Gaff tactic back around on you )
What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

Quote:
Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.

Projected global surface air temperature changes in Scenarios A, B, and C (Hansen 1988)
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 10:23 AM   #86
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Why don't you write the provider and ask him?
The provider was Hansen (and his colleagues):
http://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/10...s.warming.html

Long ago, in the 90's, before 1934 retroactively cooled itself.

So I'll reiterate. Why does 1934 look so much cooler in his 'adjusted' data than it did prior to 2000?


Quote:
Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.
So essentially what you're saying is that if Brother Hansen's model had only known what was going to happen and used those numbers, it would've been able to predict what actually happened.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 10:40 AM   #87
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The provider was Hansen (and his colleagues):
http://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/10...s.warming.html

Long ago, in the 90's, before 1934 retroactively cooled itself.
Read over Hansen's 2001 paper and tell us the manipulation.

A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
So essentially what you're saying is that if Brother Hansen's model had only known what was going to happen and used those numbers, it would've been able to predict what actually happened.
h, no.

Imagine if James Hansen had never existed. What do you think would be different?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 10:52 AM   #88
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Read over Hansen's 2001 paper and tell us the manipulation.
Lolz. That's your debate. "Read this paper" Might as well say "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you"

Anyway, how come that annual mean anomaly peak in the early 1930's was cut roughly in half by Hansen's later "adjustments" yet you stand here telling us they weren't significant adjustments.

Anyway, any answer yet? Where's the 15-year flat spot in James "Cooling the past, Warming the Future" Hansen's expert model?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 10:57 AM   #89
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Hey Wagsy, what happened to this graph? And why does it look so different from the US Temperature graph you posted above?
It's not. Note the y-axis labels.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 10:58 AM   #90
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lolz. That's your debate. "Read this paper" Might as well say "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you"
I know reading is difficult for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Anyway, how come that annual mean anomaly peak in the early 1930's was cut roughly in half by Hansen's later "adjustments" yet you stand here telling us they weren't significant adjustments.
What's the ratio of one degree Fahrenheit to one degree Celsius?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Anyway, any answer yet? Where's the 15-year flat spot in James "Cooling the past, Warming the Future" Hansen's expert model?
Obviously you didn't read the reference I provided.

I can lead you to science, but I can't make you think (or read, even). That's not my problem.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 10:59 AM   #91
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lolz. That's your debate. "Read this paper" Might as well say "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you"

Anyway, how come that annual mean anomaly peak in the early 1930's was cut roughly in half by Hansen's later "adjustments" yet you stand here telling us they weren't significant adjustments.

Anyway, any answer yet? Where's the 15-year flat spot in James "Cooling the past, Warming the Future" Hansen's expert model?
Maybe the reason that was his response is because he's tired of arguing with people who clearly haven't done the reading and research and yet think their opinion is somehow just as valid or moreso than people who have.

Kind of like when we got into the argument over the authenticity standards of the bible where you claimed it was being held to a higher standard than actual historical documents in archeological and anthropological context. It was clear to me then that you never had done the academic research necessary to hold the discussion short of what you could find on google, so it was pointless talkin to you about it. He's probably hit the same wall.

It shouldn't be surprising that someone who comes from the party that repeatedly tries to delegitimatize higher education doesn't give way to people who have so obviously done more work on the subject than they have.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 11:03 AM   #92
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Imagine if James Hansen had never existed. What do you think would be different?
Maybe there'd be more guys like this:

Quote:
Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-906721.html

Another interesting part:

Quote:
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
Hey, there's still a 2% chance some of your blessed models are somewhat accurate, Wagsy. All hope for federal control of the energy economy is not yet lost.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 11:06 AM   #93
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Maybe the reason that was his response is because he's tired of arguing with people who clearly haven't done the reading and research and yet think their opinion is somehow just as valid or moreso than people who have.

Kind of like when we got into the argument over the authenticity standards of the bible where you claimed it was being held to a higher standard than actual historical documents in archeological and anthropological context. It was clear to me then that you never had done the academic research necessary to hold the discussion short of what you could find on google, so it was pointless talkin to you about it. He's probably hit the same wall.

It shouldn't be surprising that someone who comes from the party that repeatedly tries to delegitimatize higher education doesn't give way to people who have so obviously done more work on the subject than they have.
Translation: More "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response to a direct question is a link and "here, read this."

I could go there. But it would be pointless. Wags would never read anything not anointed by the Holy Church.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 11:12 AM   #94
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Translation: More "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response to a direct question is a link and "here, read this."

I could go there. But it would be pointless. Wags would never read anything not anointed by the Holy Church.
Translation: More "I don't know, but I think I do."

Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response is someone using their inferior knowledge to impress their opinion on someone with far superior knowledge of the subject.

Fortunately though, we can't go there short of taking a brick to the head and losing all of the information we've learned over the years.

You, on the other hand, have a ways to go in many areas. Google is your friend, but you shouldn't let it take the place of a ****ing education.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 11:40 AM   #95
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Let's see if we can put this into words Beavis can wrap his little mind around.

Quote:
- Tebow sucks.

- No he doesn't.

- His mechanics are awful, he isn't smart, and he couldn't even put up decent stats when the Broncos adopted his offense from his Florida days.

- Wait, what? The Broncos never adopted that offense.

- Yeah they did, they had the option offense, did you not watch the Broncos that season or what?

- But it wasn't the same offense, it was a dumbed down version and they didn't use the spread nearly as much in Denver as he did at Florida.

- Look at this one play. 4 WR, shotgun, option to the RB. Spread option!

- That's one play. You should look at more...the vast majority of the plays for Denver weren't like that. That offense didn't even resemble the Florida offense.

- But look at this other one play. 3 WR, 1 TE in the slot, shotgun, option to the RB. Spread option!

- Look, you're just going to have to go back and watch some more tape of UF's offense, because you clearly never saw Tebow play in college. Here's a link.

- Translation: Translation: More "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response to a direct question is a link and "here, read this."

I could go there. But it would be pointless. He would never read anything not anointed by the Holy Church of Tebonners.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 11:55 AM   #96
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,999

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Yeah, yeah.

Do you deride the M.D.s who discovered the links between smoking and cancer as frauds and being part of a giant hoax because cigarette taxes have been increased over the last few decades?

STFU.
nice comparison

That's like saying your ass is as nice to look at as Jennifer Lopez's because they both have a hole in them.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 11:58 AM   #97
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Maybe there'd be more guys like this:
If you think Von Storch is a denier like you are, well, you're back in gaffe-land.

Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming


Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter OHC increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

and


A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. Note that focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet.

For how much longer do you think you can be a mole, Beavis?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 11:59 AM   #98
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
nice comparison

That's like saying your ass is as nice to look at as Jennifer Lopez's because they both have a hole in them.
Well?

Some of the same "skeptics" who denied the link between smoking and cancers are still around, denying the link between our burning of fossil fuels and our changing climate.

Why are you siding with corrupt scumbags, baja?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:08 PM   #99
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,999

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Well?

Some of the same "skeptics" who denied the link between smoking and cancers are still around, denying the link between our burning of fossil fuels and our changing climate.

Why are you siding with corrupt scumbags, baja?
You don't think you actually made some kind of a case here do you?
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:09 PM   #100
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,999

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Maybe if you had some bigger pictures Wags
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:09 PM.


Denver Broncos