|
Saul Alinsky
Pittsburgh, PA
|
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
[QUOTE]No I am not argueing for "meddling with the temperature" at all. Eliminating CO2 can't possible be "meddling with the temperate".If CO2 affects temperature, then reducing our industrial output would STOP us from meddling with the temperature, would it it not. If it doesn't then reducing our output would do nothing. Except put, at the very least, a throttle on each and every economic activity which would be, of course, controlled by an all powerful government. Don't forget we have only been burning fossile fules for a few hundred years. chaning over to renewable energy and reducing carbon emission would put us BACK to the way we were for the 10s of thousands of years before that. Actually, we’ve been spewing CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere for thousands of years, but who’s counting? You do recognize that burning wood or grass or manure also creates CO2, right? If we found a new power source tomorrow that spewed a new, unknown gas into the air but was otherwise cheap and plentiful - would we adopt it all over the world without testing the gas? Does it have to be PROVEN 100% to be harmful before we would hesitate to start dumping it into the air or does it have to be proven 100% SAFE before we would do that? I would think we'd have to prove it safe, no? Nothing is ever proven 100%. But nice try. So even if AGW has a 25% chance of being true - if there was a 25% chance this hypoithetical gas was toxic and would kill everyone in 10 years, you'd be ok with it becuase the new energy is cheaper? really? Asking and answering your own ridiculous question? Typical from the hysterics. Deniers always contend that unless AGW is proven 100% beyond any doubt we should do nothing - despite the fact that YOU have been wrong so many times in the past. Since when has spewing ANYTHING into the air been innocuous (CFCs, SO2, agent organge, DDT, etc). And the hysterics always claim we have to do SOMETHING, even if they don’t understand if the cure is worse than the disease. Typical hysteric bullshit. In most cases spewing lots fo anything into the air and pretending it's safe has never seemed to pan out in the past - so I'm all for reducing our emissions of CO2. No problem. Just don’t let governments strangle our economy with a cure that you can’t know isn’t worse than the disease. Lastly - please cite the times scientists have been "wrong" on this. I can find only one. I'll take their one to the hundreds od things we have put in the air and water that we thought were safe and ended up not to be. Sure… easy enough to do, but due to length, your examples will be in a subsequent post.
|
|
“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”
Joined: Oct 6, 2009
Comments: 552
Show Low, AZ
|
NobodyYouKnow wrote: <quoted text> Total crap. Land temperatures from boreholes show strong increase. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/... Independently verified check of the processing. and Oceans have also steadily warmed. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/2009... Now that constitutes 97%+ of the 'surface temperature' so there is no way that you can find a strong cooling. I suspect that you are just cutting and pasting some confused idiots claims who got it third hand from Rush Limbaugh.. Boreholes Schmoreholes. I agree with you about Rush Limbaugh being less than savory but he's a shill too. All shills come off cheap & sleazy. Politics is sleaze, because the masses are sore, tired, and busy, and it takes a lot to get em to even give a sh*t. Your hiding guru daddies' very mantra, in fact, along with Gremlin' Gore's, which: in fact is true therefore to be taken with a grain of salt. Since those ARGOS buoys in five years showed no heat deep ocean, that 97% in the top 1,000 feet - or LESS really - and CO2 REFRACTED INFRA RED HEAT CAN NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, SINCE THE DISTANCE INFRA-RED MAKES IT UNDERWATER IS ABOUT A TENTH MILLIMETER.. and that means that's ALL the heat your End of the World Church's got to work with. So you've got no lens; and even with what CO2 is in the air from just dumping, since THE OCEANS AREN'T HEATED BY INFRA RED - INFRA-RED ONLY PENETRATES ABOUT A TENTH MILLIMETER. Stopped in the first tenth-millimeter of entering the ocean. So you're out on CO2 is heating oceans, or ever did for that matter and you've got about 400 feet of...moderately warm water. To boil oceans like a Godzilla movie, Zombie. See ya at Church!
|
|
Saul Alinsky
Pittsburgh, PA
|
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
Lastly - please cite the times scientists have been "wrong" on this. I can find only one. I'll take their one to the hundreds od things we have put in the air and water that we thought were safe and ended up not to be. Here are just a few of the more recent ones for your viewing pleasure: "As recently as February Mr. Gore was giving a presentation showing flooding, drought and wildfires saying,“This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented.” President Barack Obama, in a town hall meeting in April echoed the Nobel laureate’s comments saying,“You're now looking at huge, cataclysmic hurricanes, complete changes in weather patterns.” He followed that in September when in a speech before the United Nations he claimed,“More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.” But what if you predicted global natural disaster catastrophes and they didn’t happen? Does that invalidate your entire message? This is the conundrum faced by climate change alarmists as many of their predictions begin to fall flat. Mother Nature can be very fickle and predicting what she will bring tomorrow is difficult. Trying to do so over a span of years is next to impossible. Complicating matters, recent empirical evidence indicates that despite increasing carbon dioxide temperatures are decreasing and there has been no increase in climactic related events at all. Researchers at Florida State University recently updated their analysis of tropical cyclones and determined that tropical activity continues to decrease and is approaching 30 year lows. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy index (ACE) which is the standard for measuring tropical cyclone activity sits at 525 globally – far below the normal level of 769. Every tropical cyclone basin when looked at individually is seeing similarly low levels. Close to home to the United States, the North Atlantic hurricane basin as been very quiet and at low levels not seen in 12 years. The predictions of ‘cataclysmic hurricanes’ that would be stronger due to global warming are also not coming true. A peer reviewed study in the publication Geophysical Research Letters discovered that,“the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change. Tornadoes, one of nature’s smaller disasters but also one of the most destructive, are not seeing increases in frequency or intensity. For the 2009 calendar year, tornado activity is approaching the 10th percentile of historical activity since 1954. Over the longer term, according to the National Climactic Data Center the number of strong to violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) is decreasing as well." Oh and, by the way, who actually thought those "hundreds od [sic]things we have put in the air and water that we thought were safe and ended up not to be." Oh yeah, SCIENTISTS! You actually make my argument for me! A funny one about your alternate messiah, James Hansen, to come...
|
|
Saul Alinsky
Pittsburgh, PA
|
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
Lastly - please cite the times scientists have been "wrong" on this. I can find only one. I'll take their one to the hundreds od things we have put in the air and water that we thought were safe and ended up not to be. Yep, here is the godfather of the modern hysteric AGW movement: "In a 2001 interview with author Rob Reiss about his upcoming book “Stormy Weather” Salon.com contributor Suzy Hansen (no apparent relation to Jim Hansen) asks some questions about his long path of research for the book. One of the questions centered around an interview of Dr. James Hansen by Reiss around 1988-1989. "While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said,“If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said,“Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained,“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said,“There will be more police cars.” Why?“Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read,“Water by request only.” Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” When did he say this will happen? Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989." But this is the guy you hysterics tout as the leader of your cult?
|
|
Saul Alinsky
Pittsburgh, PA
|
Northie wrote: <quoted text>
The first rule for radicals, Mr. Alinsky, is to realize that those who disagree with you are not all radicals.
I'm very disappointed that Nevada's voters will not keep Reid unless he stops the Yucca Mountain waste dump, but I'm not surprised. Are you? No one wants the waste in their backyard--ever, under any circumstances--so disposing of it will cost far more than just the expense of digging a hole. That is perfectly reasonable.
Blaming 'the environmental cohort" for this is meaningless and wrong. Many of Yucca's most powerful opponents are local conservatives, and many of its proponents are enviros like me. In general, environmentalists are split right down the middle on nuclear power. When you stop building straw men to attack, you might see that. I'm glad you're acquainted with one of our current President's mentors. It at least shows you are paying some attention. However, I'm not familiar with the rule you mention. I think our current President prefers this one: "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." As for Reid, he's a POS and deserves to be canned. Nevada voters are coming to this realization, Yucca Mountain or not. And I don't believe Yucca Mountain is their primary reason to vote for or against the POS. In regard to those for and against, no shit people don't want it in their "back yard", even if it is 100 miles away. But guess what? It's going to be somewhere, and this is where the DOE has chosen. In regard to those for and against, yeah, Yucca does tend to get those from both sides of the spectrum. But you said it yourself... "local conservatives" are against. And these are the NIMBY people, hardly the nationwide enviro crew that has done their utmost to destroy the nuclear power industry. Sorry Northie, but I don't really see the strawman? It is rather common knowledge that the enviros have tried to kill the nuclear power industry and, therefore, have driven up the cost to prohibitive levels to build, license, and start new plants. Are you saying the enviro crew hasn't tried to kill the nuclear power industry?
|
|
litesong
Hunters, WA
|
Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text> Demagoguery and spin? Is that what the far-left now calls simple questions? I guess so... Isn't spin saying that "too much CO2 causes problems..." and then by extrapolation saying that there is too much CO2 in our atmosphere because you believe it to be the mechanism for global warming, and you then believe global warming is caused by man as opposed to a natural phenomenon? Aren't you making quite the leap? http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp... Science says that 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs of man-made infra-red energy absorbing CO2 is adding to the global warming effect. Man is on his way to adding 10 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs of infra-red energy absorbing CO2 to the atmosphere. If you contend that such is not the case, write up your peer-reviewed science paper published in a Science Journal. You are wasting time babbling & spinning on topix AGW forums.
|
|
Northie
Spokane, WA
|
Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>Are you saying the enviro crew hasn't tried to kill the nuclear power industry? Not at all. Before the dangers of climate cooking were confirmed, nuclear did not seem worth either its economic or its environmental price. Remember Chernobyl? How about the "Green Run" at Hanford? And that's not to mention economic disasters like the Trojan plant, the WPPS fiasco or the current Hanford cleanup project, all of which occurred in my particular backyard, and with plenty of my tax dollars. That was then. Now we know that we must replace fossil fuels or we'll leave human history's largest bill to pay. We'll have to live with nukes, and plenty of leading enviros are leading the charge. But nukes will still be costly, and slow to build. As Pickens says, gas and wind are faster. Nuclear and solar ultimately have more potential, but take much longer to develop. More effective still, we can reduce energy demand by improving building codes and urban planning. That's the proverbial low-hanging fruit.
|
|
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
Comments: 1859
Connecticut
ISP:
Vernon Rockville, CT
|
Jeffery Wright wrote: Deserves a repost: Al Gore / AIT Index, Vol. 18: Globally averaged temperatures have dropped .151°F (.084°C) since An Inconvenient Truth was released For the record, through October, 2009, globally averaged temperatures have gone down .151°F (.084°C) since An Inconvenient Truth was released at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2006. This marks the 39th out of the 47 months since An Inconvenient Truth was released that globally averaged temperatures have been less than they were when AIT was released. Truly inconvenient. http://algorelied.com/... I don't care if you believe in AGW or not, 3 years is not significant. Tell me - was the stock market a good investment from 1945 to 1995? Obviosuly the answer was yes - the stock market ROSE significantly from 1045 to 1995. Now - was there ever a 3 year period when it went down during that time? Does that dip prove that the increase in the stock market was fake? Clearly it does not. Temperature, like the stock market is up and down up and down - but trends one way or the other - warming or cooling. Whether you dispute AGW or not almost NOBODY disputes the earth is warming. Even AGW deniers admit the earth is in a warming trend since the last ice age - they just don't think Man has anything to do with it. To cite a tiny dip in temps coming off some VERY VERY warm years in the past decade and saying that proves the earth is cooling (or not warming) is frankly nuts. Glacers are recdeding all over the place - the earth is warming.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
Comments: 1859
Connecticut
ISP:
Vernon Rockville, CT
|
Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>
What is it with you libs? You can't even provide a direct quote and argue the actual point.
Since you are so f'ing lazy you can't even seem to go back to what "he" said, here is his quote from post #1747.
"And ANY amount of arsenic is a pollutant because we have no need of arsenic in our biology."
My link clearly shows that he's full of shit, that arsenic is PART of our biology, and that in small amounts it causes no harm.
Jesus H. Christ... do you libs ever argue the point or simply always make shit up?
And by the way, I really don't give a rat's ass about arsenic. The only reason I even brought it up is because "LessHypeMoreFact" or whatever he/she calls himself once again threw shit against the wall hoping it would buttress his opinion. Wrong again... are you even listenting to yourself. "Having no need of" is not the same as "causing no harm" I have no need to sit through opera, even though it won't cause me harm. Point is he didn't say "it is harmful to us" he said "We have no need of it" You posted links that say "it may not be harmful to us" Nowhere does it say "we have found that humans actually Need arsenic to survive. Effectively he said "we don't need arsenic" and you said "Bullshit - small quantities of arsenic doesn't kill us" I am just defending logic - you were not arguing his point and didn't prove him wrong - becuase he never claimed what you "proved". It wasn't that important, happens all the time on here but still bugs me up a wall when someone "answers" with facts not pertaining to what was said.
|
|
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
Comments: 1859
Connecticut
ISP:
Vernon Rockville, CT
|
Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>
Except put, at the very least, a throttle on each and every economic activity which would be, of course, controlled by an all powerful government.
<quoted text>
Actually, we’ve been spewing CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere for thousands of years, but who’s counting? You do recognize that burning wood or grass or manure also creates CO2, right?
<quoted text>
Nothing is ever proven 100%. But nice try.
<quoted text>
Asking and answering your own ridiculous question? Typical from the hysterics.
<quoted text>
And the hysterics always claim we have to do SOMETHING, even if they don’t understand if the cure is worse than the disease. Typical hysteric bullshit.
<quoted text>
No problem. Just don’t let governments strangle our economy with a cure that you can’t know isn’t worse than the disease.
<quoted text>
Sure… easy enough to do, but due to length, your examples will be in a subsequent post. Burning wood and grass and cow manure does not add to CO2 in any quantity - as those things decay into CO2 when they rot naturally. fossile fuels were CO trapped away over the course of millions of years and we are burning them off at a rate millions of times faster than it took to create them. I care about the planet surviving and having something for our kids you care about money. The cure isn't worse than the disease I know that becuase the cure can't possibly hurt the earth. It may hurt our standard of living but again - since WE MUST move off fossile fule and onto renewables AT SOME POINT -doing it now may hurt us in the short term, but long term it can only help - we have to get there anyway as fossile fules will run out.
|
|
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
Comments: 1859
Connecticut
ISP:
Vernon Rockville, CT
|
Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>
Here are just a few of the more recent ones for your viewing pleasure:
"As recently as February Mr. Gore was giving a presentation showing flooding, drought and wildfires saying,“This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented.”
President Barack Obama, in a town hall meeting in April echoed the Nobel laureate’s comments saying,“You're now looking at huge, cataclysmic hurricanes, complete changes in weather patterns.” He followed that in September when in a speech before the United Nations he claimed,“More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”
But what if you predicted global natural disaster catastrophes and they didn’t happen? Does that invalidate your entire message? This is the conundrum faced by climate change alarmists as many of their predictions begin to fall flat.
Mother Nature can be very fickle and predicting what she will bring tomorrow is difficult. Trying to do so over a span of years is next to impossible. Complicating matters, recent empirical evidence indicates that despite increasing carbon dioxide temperatures are decreasing and there has been no increase in climactic related events at all.
Researchers at Florida State University recently updated their analysis of tropical cyclones and determined that tropical activity continues to decrease and is approaching 30 year lows. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy index (ACE) which is the standard for measuring tropical cyclone activity sits at 525 globally – far below the normal level of 769.
Every tropical cyclone basin when looked at individually is seeing similarly low levels. Close to home to the United States, the North Atlantic hurricane basin as been very quiet and at low levels not seen in 12 years.
The predictions of ‘cataclysmic hurricanes’ that would be stronger due to global warming are also not coming true. A peer reviewed study in the publication Geophysical Research Letters discovered that,“the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.
Tornadoes, one of nature’s smaller disasters but also one of the most destructive, are not seeing increases in frequency or intensity. For the 2009 calendar year, tornado activity is approaching the 10th percentile of historical activity since 1954. Over the longer term, according to the National Climactic Data Center the number of strong to violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) is decreasing as well."
Oh and, by the way, who actually thought those "hundreds od [sic]things we have put in the air and water that we thought were safe and ended up not to be." Oh yeah, SCIENTISTS! You actually make my argument for me!
A funny one about your alternate messiah, James Hansen, to come... They weren't wrong. Neither of the things you post at the begninng are wrong becuase they were predicting the future - still future. They may BECOME wrong but you can't say that we won't encounter those things just because we hit a lull in the warming for a couple years. I don't know that GW will create worse storms, i'm not a climatologitst but I think we can all agree that Obama was not talking about a week from now or a month from now can't we? The only time Climate change people have been really wrong was the cooling predictions in the 70s.
|
|
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
Comments: 1859
Connecticut
ISP:
Vernon Rockville, CT
|
Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text> Yep, here is the godfather of the modern hysteric AGW movement: "In a 2001 interview with author Rob Reiss about his upcoming book “Stormy Weather” Salon.com contributor Suzy Hansen (no apparent relation to Jim Hansen) asks some questions about his long path of research for the book. One of the questions centered around an interview of Dr. James Hansen by Reiss around 1988-1989. "While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said,“If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said,“Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained,“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said,“There will be more police cars.” Why?“Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read,“Water by request only.” Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” When did he say this will happen? Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989." But this is the guy you hysterics tout as the leader of your cult? Never heard of him, and don't belong to any cult.
|
|
“Climate Realist”
Joined: Dec 20, 2008
Comments: 12078
Ebensfeld, Germany
|
Northie wrote: ...Before the dangers of climate cooking were confirmed... Climte cooking is confirmed? Where, how?
|
|
“Climate Realist”
Joined: Dec 20, 2008
Comments: 12078
Ebensfeld, Germany
|
CTEd wrote: Burning wood and grass and cow manure does not add to CO2 in any quantity - as those things decay into CO2 when they rot naturally. fossile fuels were CO trapped away over the course of millions of years and we are burning them off at a rate millions of times faster than it took to create them.
I care about the planet surviving... Carbon in wood or fossil fuel is the same, it was in the air before and now it's back. Carbon is vital for life, using fossil fuel allow us to leave surface carbon for nature while we retrieve imprisoned carbon from its subterranean dungeon and free it into the sunlight. Don't hate carbon; it's the backbone of life.
|
|
“You are not your bank account.”
Joined: Feb 6, 2008
Comments: 1256
Norman, Oklahoma
ISP:
Norman, OK
|
Brian_G wrote: <quoted text>
Can't you read? I can, but evidently you can't...
|
|
“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”
Joined: Oct 6, 2009
Comments: 552
Show Low, AZ
|
Brian_G wrote: <quoted text>
Climte cooking is confirmed? Where, how? ROFLMAO
|
|
“Climate Realist”
Joined: Dec 20, 2008
Comments: 12078
Ebensfeld, Germany
|
Judged:
1
1
Michael Allred wrote: I can, but evidently you can't... Intellectual elites have lead Europe's fascist movement, eugenics, the ban on DDT that's killed millions of Africans and "peace" movements that have stymied efforts to stop the genocide in Somalia. Intellectuals believe they know better than the rest of us, they cozy up to dictators and criminals while rejecting the values that make America great. Their political correctness and foolishness have caused more harm than religion ever could. Common sense tells us to value liberty and life, intellectualism tells you all values are relative. You decide.
|
|
“You are not your bank account.”
Joined: Feb 6, 2008
Comments: 1256
Norman, Oklahoma
ISP:
Norman, OK
|
Judged:
1
1
Brian_G wrote: <quoted text>
Intellectual elites have lead Europe's fascist movement, eugenics, the ban on DDT that's killed millions of Africans and "peace" movements that have stymied efforts to stop the genocide in Somalia. Intellectuals believe they know better than the rest of us, they cozy up to dictators and criminals while rejecting the values that make America great. Their political correctness and foolishness have caused more harm than religion ever could.
Common sense tells us to value liberty and life, intellectualism tells you all values are relative. You decide. That was a whole lot of misinformation just to say that you don't know anything and that you don't WANT to know anything for fear that any knowledge whatsoever would get in the way of your heartfelt irrational prejudices. What makes you a hypocrite is that you started off trying to pass yourself off as someone who was legitimately trying to debate a scientific issue. Instead you have revealed yourself as just another pathetic, gullible little git.
|
|
“EnvironMENTAList ”
Joined: Feb 2, 2007
Comments: 7402
Near Detroit
ISP:
Saint Thomas, Canada
|
Michael Allred wrote: <quoted text>
That was a whole lot of misinformation just to say that you don't know anything and that you don't WANT to know anything for fear that any knowledge whatsoever would get in the way of your heartfelt irrational prejudices.
What makes you a hypocrite is that you started off trying to pass yourself off as someone who was legitimately trying to debate a scientific issue. Instead you have revealed yourself as just another pathetic, gullible little git. Climate Change predicts global warming will cause global climate chaos and climate crisis in the form of extreme weather occurances such as drought, flooding, heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. This climate crisis from global warming has been promised since 1986. Therefore this resulting cooling and lack of climate crisis we have experienced since then, trumps predicted warming leaving the CO2 theory disproved.
|
|
RUSH IS RIGHT
Manila, Philippines
|
Michael Allred wrote: <quoted text>
you have revealed yourself as just another pathetic, gullible little git. And I would say that you have revealed YOURSELF to be a another pathetic, gullible young fool.
|
|
|
Judge it!
Search the Weather Forum:
Capricorn
