Slashdot Mirror
This Was America's Warmest Winter On Record (slate.com)
hondo77 writes: On Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its official assessment of December, January, and February's temperatures across the United States, and the results are striking: Not a single state in the U.S. had a cooler than average winter. (NOAA treats Alaska and Hawaii separately, due to shorter weather data records there -- though both states were significantly warmer than normal this winter. Weather records for the contiguous United States go back to 1895.) NOAA blames the recent warm weather on a record-strength El Nino "and other climate patterns," most notably, global warming. As a whole, this winter in the lower 48 was about 4.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average: a sharp contrast to the previous back-to-back frigid polar vortex winters, especially in the Northeast.
Write your congress critter and tell him we want more mild winters.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I hope next year is the same.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Global warming proven to be a lie!
n/t
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Or the previous decade.
.
.
.
Here's the rankings of warmest from the decade
2015 - 1st
2014 - 2nd
2013 - 4th
2012 - 8th
2011 - 11th
2010 -3rd
All 15 years this century are in the top 15 warmest years on record.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Question: "How much snow did you shovel over the last decade?"
Answer: "Too much!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
We had 30" of snow in 24 hours this winter. That's all the snow we received.
Why? Because we had temperatures in the 40s and 50s through all of December, including hitting 71 on the 24th. We've had 40s through large portions of January and February and February had 50s at the end of the month. Today our temperature was almost 70, tomorrow it will be above 70 and winter isn't yet over.
See how the game works?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
In all fairness, the story isn't really about global warming, either. It's about the weather in the United States. In recent summers, the US has been abnormally cool while the rest of the world has been hot. Overall, the Earth has been very warm, but the weather in the United States doesn't necessarily indicate as such. By the way, mid-latitude weather may not be the best indicator of global warming, especially during the winter.
The Arctic Oscillation has two phases, the positive phase being a strong polar vortex that traps the cold air in the Arctic, while the negative phase weakens the polar vortex and allows more cold air outbreaks in the mid-latitudes. The Arctic Oscillation is very much related to sudden stratospheric warming, which is often a precursor to the onset of mid-latitude cold air outbreaks. It makes sense that the stratosphere would have a role in weakening the polar vortex, which is actually a semi-permanent large-scale feature near the tropopause. In the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation, the polar regions can be quite cold while the mid-latitude regions are warm.
Global warming means global warming, not regional warming. And there are reasons why the weather in the United States might be decoupled from other parts of the Earth. Even with global warming, a few regions of the Earth might actually cool. For example, if global warming slows the North Atlantic Drift current, the British Isles may cool because of global warming. My point is that scientists have to be precise in what they say, otherwise climate deniers (and trolls, in the case of the OP) will distort their message and attack them.
You know what? I have no idea if warming is caused by humans or not. And it really doesn't matter.
If there is a warming trend, human caused or not, we should be dealing with the evacuations and necessary work to deal with rising sea levels.
We're not going to be able to stop it. It's time to figure out who is going to be underwater in 5-10 years (if anyone) and get them out. If there is a problem with warming coming, that is the solution. The rest of it is just babble.
Now, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time, feel free. I just don't want to be sent back to the 18th Century to stop something that's going to happen no matter what we do.
I am all in favor of less CO2 emissions and more efficiency. I just think it is a waste of time, at this point, to make that what we throw all our money at, because it isn't going to make a bit of difference in the short term.
"Nuh-uh!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
Steven Goddard doesn't have the best record on climate change issues.
He was very critical the National Snow and Ice Data Center's data on Arctic sea ice extent before being proved wrong and having to retract his claims.
He's also accused the National Climatic Data Center of fabricating global warming, saying their "adjustments" to the data are the only global warming signal. The adjustments actually exist because many of the monitoring stations have been relocated from urban areas into rural areas. That introduces a cool bias to the data that needs to be corrected for. The NCDC has been very transparent about this, but Goddard continues to persist in his claims of data manipulation. It's also worth noting that some other adjustments have lowered modern temperature records. For example, sea temperature measurements used to be taken by lowering a bucket from a ship into the water. Now, temperatures are measured as water cycles through the engine of a ship. Of course, the engines heat the water, so the bias must be removed. Conveniently, Goddard hasn't objected to this adjustment.
Radiosonde measurements certainly do show lower tropospheric warming, consistent with other instruments. Global warming typically refers to warming at the surface or through the lower troposphere.
You should be aware that even in global warming scenarios where the planet on average is several degrees warmer it'll still get cold enough for snow to fall out of the sky in most places where snow has historically been common. What you'll have a slight tendency to have less snow in many places due to temperature that's offset by a lot more water going into the atmosphere. Many places may see lots more snow.
In many high temperate regions you'll also see more frequent cold snaps. Global warming doesn't mean the climate gets warmer every day of every year; it means there are more total joules of thermal energy in the atmosphere. Since we're talking about a giant rotating ball of fluid which is exchanging heat with the surface and space what you get is much more complicated stuff happening.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You'll think that when New York streets look more like Venice. It's nice for sure, but the biggest effect is not going to be "nice weather"... people always think weather is nice when it's average. The real issue will be bigger more violent storms, and rising ocean flooding of coastal areas where humans like to build. The rich will rise with the tide and the poor will drown.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Well, here in the Netherlands, the number of days there was frost at day-time this winter could be counted on a single hand. I may have had central heating on for maybe two weeks in days in total ('80s concrete apartment, 60 sq.m, bottom corner, reasonably isolated, double glass on one side, no indirect heat from neighbours because that apartment is empty) the past half year. It certainly has been the mildest winter in human recollection here. Positive: I'll probably get returned a shit-load of money on my energy bill advances this year. There has been no snow to mention this year. In the northern part there has been one frosty period of a week or so and some nice snow... but not in the center and bottom 2/3ds of our country.
Spring flowers are in full bloom, bees are collecting honey, trees are budding... at the end of February/start of March... it's all quite strange...
A few decades ago we would have been able to ice-skate on natural ice for several weeks or even months each year... Marathons and '11 cities' full day races on frozen canals and rivers. One year even the Rhine (the largest river in the northwestern part of the European continent) froze over. In the last couple of years the number of days of skate-able ice may have been a few weeks, at the most. And this year it was only a few hours. So there were national championships ice skating on natural ice this year... the one day it was possible to skate on a thoroughly nurtured 'natural' ice track somewhere in the north-eastern part of our country...
Here in Phoenix we hit 90 degrees on Feb. 17th this year, which is the earliest 90-degree day on record (since 1895, at least). The average for that day is 71, so we're a bit above average. Last weekend things cooled off a little bit (i.e. approached the average) but the forecast shows that we're back into the high 80s approaching 90 again this week. Last year the first 90-degree day didn't happen until March 16, so we're about a month early. All of our reptiles and bugs are waking up early this year.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Speaking as someone who's live in New England for almost 60 years now, for most of my life there was one regular pattern you could count on each winter: bitter, very dry cold would settle in in late December, followed by a slight rise in temperature in early February that would bring the first real snow of the season. The snow would get heavier and wetter as winter drew to a close.
You need two things for snow: sub-freezing temperatures AND water in the air. The 5F - 20F temperatures we had in January were plenty cold enough for snow, but the air was bone dry. The January skies were a deep, startling blue, often without a single wisp of cloud to be seen. The lack of water was also a contributor to the cold. Days with snow are almost always warmer because the clouds trap heat that would radiate into space. It's desert nights out west where the temperatures plunge fifty degrees after sundown.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Based on that logic, any anonymous coward comment is just as credible as anything else posted on the internet. Of course, there's a massive amount of nonsense spewed from anonymous cowards here. You need to have a way to evaluate the credibility of a claim.
I'll cite Bayes' Theorem as a way of evaluating the credibility of a statement. Person A has made many statements about a particular topic in the past and has been shown to be correct. Person B has made many statements about the same topic in the past and has frequently been wrong. If Person A and Person B both make new statements about the topic, without knowing anything specific to the new statements, the probability of Person A's statement being correct is higher than the probability of Person B's statement being correct. This is based on prior probabilities.
Steven Goddard has made many less-than-accurate statements about climate change in the past. Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.
That paper deals only with temperatures between 1958 and 1977, specifically a brief dip in 1960-1965 (and caused primarily by the Mount Agung volcanic eruption). Holding that up as "contradicting" the 150 year trend of global warming is ludicrous, and a prime example of cherry-picking.
Also describing it as a "global cooling scare" is far overstating the case. The paper merely notes the cooling of the time as a datapoint of interest. Perhaps you're confusing it with sensationalist media reports?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Yes. It's about using solid physics to develop a model, experimenting with inputs and comparing models with real data until the models improve.
Funny how people will believe economists making a guesses with the help of MS Excel instead of people using applied physics and multiple server farms.
That's just Alaska, not the entire world.
Run by people dependent on funding from the current politicos.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You mean to tell me I should believe the people that are claiming to predict what our environment will look like in 10 years when they can't even predict the weather for the next 10 days?
Yeah, I know right? Like I told this math idiot the other day, probability theory is BS! You expect me to believe you can tell me the average of a million rolls of a die when you can't even predict what number will come up on the next 3 rolls? Riiiiiiiiiiiight!
Yeah, I know right? Like I told this math idiot the other day, probability theory is BS! You expect me to believe you can tell me the average of a million rolls of a die when you can't even predict what number will come up on the next 3 rolls? Riiiiiiiiiiiight!
Mother Nature uses a loaded die for climate. I do not think we have really figured out how it's rigged yet. But the people who think they do have it figured out are making Chicken Little asses of themselves, throwing their weight around and slapping their hands all over Science making chaos, ripples and rudeness where there had once been a calm pool of open peer review, emerging theories and mutual respect. A process which valued 'attempts to falsify' and replication as much as citation and grant-seeding.
I long for the days of Nostradamus and Crystal worship. You could spot those people a mile away and keep clear.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
A real pity they have proved right, with the last 12 years containing ALL the hottest 10 years on record including the ice core records.
"For example, reporting what an NFL quarterback said about how to throw or kick a football, or a master chef on wine and cheese pairings. Neither would be an illicit appeal to authority because they are each authorities on their respective fields of expertise."
That's, in fact, the very definition of the original appeal to authority fallacy (Locke's): "because I say so" is never a rational argument (under deductive reasoning) -it is obvious when the "I" is a nobody, but people tend to accept it when coming from a presumed expert (without asking for demonstration of what it's said). A related fallacy is that of false-authority that goes even one step further: a presumed expert in field A says something about field B and tends to be believed because he's an expert after all.
Forget the entire "data has been manipulated" debate (cause that will never end). Look at it purely from a risk management perspective: There are 4 variables 1. If scientists are all WRONG and we DO NOTHING = We keep on going as we are now. 2. If scientists are all WRONG and we TAKE ACTION = We will have a cleaner environment (but we wont all die). 3. If scientists are all RIGHT and we DO NOTHING = We all slowly die out. 4. If scientists are all RIGHT and we TAKE ACTION = We slow and possibly reverse the effects. Considering 3/4 options will result in a benefit for all mankind, then that's a good outcome. If 1/4 of the variables is right, we are all dead - gone. That's a dam high risk to take based on a "If MIGHT be a hoax". We are crazy NOT to take action when the risk of all mankind being slowly killed is at stake.
Similar results here in upstate NY. By now we should have gotten 49.2 inches of snow. Instead, we've gotten 10.3 inches. It's 54F out right now (at nearly 9PM) and it should get to 70 tomorrow. Christmas day here was warmer than it was on July 4th. I didn't need to use ice melt, my roof rake, or more than one shovel all winter. I'm not really complaining about the lack of snow, but my youngest son (age 9) definitely has been.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
What kind of water?
Sea water? Filtered water?
Fully frozen or starting to freeze?
Fast boil? Slow boil?
How to you make a vacuum 200 years ago? What do you write with? Where do you measure it?
You see, even science can be falsified.
Allow me my dear coward. We'll assume that since you are talking about the Celsius system, there is a very specific water to use, at a standard pressure for both freezing and boiling points.
Note that the standard pressures are slightly dfferent for different establishing entities, but all are easy to compare. Let's use NIST Standard Pressure, which is 101.325 kPa which corresponds to 1 bar, or 14.504 psi, or .98692 atm.
In the Celsius temperature standard, Water freezes at 0 degrees, and boils at 100 degrees - although more on that below. The standard water source is the misleadingly named Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water. It is actually not ocean water, but very carefully distilled and very pure water. Given the better resolution of todays temperature measurements, and the more accurate standard of using the triple point of VSMOW, the boiling point of water is actually 99.9839 C. That is rather close, but is correlatable to earlier measurements regardless. In real life the difference is negligible, since the boiling point is very sensitive to atmospheric pressure.
And triple point at standard pressure is a very specific thing, so boiling is not a factor at all any more.
And scientists of earlier times calibrated their instruments to the accuracy of earlier times, as well as the methods used in making those measurements. So we can correlate the different measurements. Are those earlier measurements accurate to four digits to the right of the decimal point? Nope. But that doesn't disprove them. Just introduces a tiny bit of "fuzz". And this is the sort of thing that I think stands at ground zero of the AGW debate. People who simply have no idea of how basic measurements are made today, are trying to disprove them with ancient definitions, and inaccurate ideas of how the measurements are made. Better to learnhow things are done before condemning them based on inaccurate ideas of how they are done.
Much better to use the Kelvin scale anyhow.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Polar Vortex was a local phenomenon, and while the Lower 48 was freezing its nuts off, Alaska was 18 degrees C warmer than usual.
You're confusing local weather events with the global temperature record. I wouldn't go yelling about bad science if I were you...
Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.
Let us keep in mind that Goddard's "Debunking" of AGW isn't even based on surface temperatures.
And what is interesting is that instead of him asking "Why", he just decided My dat is right, everyone elses is wrong."
Ain't necessarily so. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
Goddard has been thorougly debunked and quite often:
http://rankexploits.com/musing...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
http://reallysciency.blogspot....
https://rhinohide.wordpress.co...
We can read an actual paper about his issue : https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibl...
Enough of this stuff. It won't change any deniers minds even if they continue to spew long debunked Proofs of their position.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Except for the small fact that so far their models have proven to be very very wrong.
A broad, vague statement that demands a citation before it can even be discussed.
Until they can show any form of prediction, iterative models are garbage.
The process of scientific investigation includes making predictions (right or wrong) and then learning from them. Wrong answers are not "garbage" -- they're a baseline that allows scientists to plot the course towards more correct ones. And iteration is the process that improves them. If you oppose iteration, then it's clear you have an anti-science agenda.
And no, iterative models cannot be wrong in the 5 year timeframe, but right in the longer term (except by sheer chance), because errors are cumulative.
*FACEPALM*
There are many models of many things that cannot make accurate short-term predictions, but become more accurate in the longer-term. Oh, look!
All pretty much scientific method 101 here kids.
I'm doubting you ever took any science courses beyond high school.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Yes, Mann is one of the authors of that paper. Do you have better evidence, from better proxies, that contradicts it? The MWP event was indeed global in impact, but none of your links show that it was warmer than today, averaged globally.
Of your cited links, the first two are for the same paper, which notes glacial fluctations globally at that time, advancing and retreating, but does not address global average temperatures in any way.
The third link (second paper) actually says ocean temperatures have been cooling for 10,000 years, but reversed this trend 150 years ago. And specifically it says MWP ocean temperatures matched those ~60 years ago (i.e. cooler than today):
[Indo-Pacific temperatures] are within error of modern (~1950 CE) values between 900 and 1200 CE during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and are colder by 0.75 +/- 0.35C between 1550 and 1850 CE during the Little Ice Age (LIA), followed by nonmonotonic warming in the past 150 years
The final link is to a bunch of extrapolation and speculation, but the cited paper examines southern South America temperatures specifically, and while the paper finds some relatively warm temperatures there (compared to 1901–1995 averaged temperatures, not today's) it makes no claims about global temperatures, and certainly doesn't claim that they were higher than today. Like many "skeptical" sites the link confuses "current warm period" with "the last few years", yet you'll find nearly all papers define that baseline as the average of 20th century temperatures; around 0.5 degrees C cooler than today's temperatures.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
So you your "science" is a guy in politics and your reference is a newspaper?
How about we at least try to get the discussion out of the sandpit and up to grade school level. Would that be too hard?
Here is some data that many people don't know about. We *expect* to see natural warming as the planet climbs out of the Little Ice Age. This is corroborated by the fact that surface is warming faster than the lower tropical troposphere - which is *opposite* to the specific hypothesis of AGW.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
When the observations contradict the hypothesis the Scientific Method is extremely clear we must accept the Null Hypothesis for now, and discard or amend the AGW hypothesis until it matches observations.
It turns out that the Transient and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity values were computed too high by a factor of 4 to 7 because modelling of water vapor (the dominant 'Greenhouse gas') along with convection and other transport mechanisms is simply too complex for our computing power. So we guessed. Turns out the guess was not only wrong, it was very wrong.
Do we see warming? yes.
Is some of the warming due to humans? quite possibly.
Is there a natural component to the warming? yes.
Is the warming at a disastrous rate compared to warming in the last hundred centuries? no.
Is the current mean global temperature greater than recorded than 1855? yes
Is the current mean global temperature greater than determined by proxies in the last hundred centuries? no
Are polar bears going extinct? no, their population is increasing (yay!)
Is the Arctic summer ice cap disappearing? no, after a low in 2012 it is recovering
Is the Antarctic ice cap disappearing? no, some parts are melting but the overall ice volume is increasing
Can politicians affect the climate? no, thank goodness
Is the sea level rising? yes, but at the same rate for centuries
if you look at the actual data, not the sensationalist journalist reports, but the actual data, you will find that while we need to treat our planet better - there is no cause for panic, no cause to give the *unelected* United Nations more power to regulate every aspect of your life, and no reason for the UN to take money from you in the name of 'carbon pollution'.
Be Free people. Thanks to human ingenuity and innovation we can move to a brighter future instead of having to live with less and less (smaller houses, smaller cars, less water, less choice, less liberty, etc).
Translation: "I don't understand science. I don't want to understand science. I assume all scientists are corrupt, because they are saying things I don't like to hear, even though their methods have increased my life expectancy massively, and provided me this computer which I use to loudly proclaim how wrong they are."
The NOAA historical data has been shown to have altered, this is different from the previous time it was altered. http://realclimatescience.com/...
This is kind of always what bugs me - because global warming isn't actually "global". You even stated it - even if the global average goes up, large regions could indeed have lower average temperatures over an extended period of time.
My question has always been - is the global average an actual meaningful metric, or do we really need to look at something a little more fine-grained? The globe is a big place, so simply averaging over the entire thing is losing a lot of information.
I'm also curious as to the nature of the increase in average. For instance, I would wager that there are effects that are important that don't change the average: For instance, last summer where I live the average temp (simple [high+low]/2) was about the same as the year before, but the overnight temperatures were much hotter - that is, instead of being 60F night 95F day, they were 70F night 85F day.
So in a similar vein, I'd say the effects of climate going from say 60 low -> 90 high to 60 low -> 95 high would be different than 60 -> 90 to 62.5 -> 92.5, even though both are a 2.5 deg increase in average.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Can politicians affect the climate? no, thank goodness
I agree with most of your points, but I'm not sure about this one. Given the amount of both hot air and methane produced, I believe politicians ARE having a significant effect on the climate.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
It's not that. I understand Science, you cannot trust the entertainment industry to be honest about the science.
And if you're getting your science from the entertainment industry I have bad news for you.
Movies, TV shows, News programs, Talk radio, All the entertainment industry.
Neil Degrasse, Bill Nye, Also are paid entertainers.
Get it?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.
As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.
As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.
As to the oceans being stable prior to the modern period.
http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Chang...
You can see from that and this:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/in...
That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time.
The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years.
And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases.
So... my point is sustained.
As to taxes having to go to build sea walls... Or people relocate. Its happened before and will happen again. Presuming that a city that has stood on a given shore for a thousand years will always stand there is presumptuous. If that city wants to spend its own money to secure it from whatever that is its own business and problem. However, it is not the responsibility of people in cities that are not threatened by long term climate change to make unsustainable cities affordable.
Either sustain your city or abandon it. A great many places are unsustainable. How many times does Florida have to be bailed out because they build stupidly on parts of land you shouldn't build on?
First off, don't build right next to the fucking ocean in storm zones. In South America they are much better about this in that they put parks near the ocean so when the storm comes it messes with trees or something and doesn't destroy buildings.
Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations. That means you either have to build seawalls or put your structures on stilts or something. Whatever you do... don't build the same way as someone might in a non-storm zone and then complain when the obvious happens.
Third, do not subsidize flood and hurricane insurance. This encourages people to build and live in places they cannot afford to live because they are asking other people to assume the liability when their property is destroyed. If you can't handle the liability it means you're either building in a place where you cannot afford to build or you're building in a manner that will not survive a storm. Either way... you're basically abusing the generosity of the rest of the country to subsidize an unaffordable life style.
As to how I would know what they're doing... Bullshit. Lets put up Leonardo DiCaprio's homes... he's been going on and on and on about climate change.
This is his house ap
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.