NIWA scientists agree de Freitas climate paper streets ahead?

It’s six years since NIWA published their Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series (pdf, 8.5 MB), the latest version of the national temperature record. It’s six years, too, since NIWA promised the people of New Zealand (in Parliament) they would publish the methodology in that report in a peer-reviewed journal. But they haven’t done so—maybe they aren’t too pleased with it.

Last year, three scientists associated with the NZ Climate Science Coalition published a peer-reviewed paper concluding the New Zealand temperature rise over the last hundred years was only 0.28°C, much lower than the last NIWA effort, which claimed it was 0.91°C. Though I notice just now when checking the NIWA website they’re claiming 0.92°C.

Kenneth Richard has just posted an article on the de Freitas et al. paper at NoTricksZone – h/t Maggy Wassilieff.  He describes the paper thus:

According to scientists de Freitas, Dedekind, and Brill (2015), removing “contaminated data” from New Zealand’s  nation-wide temperature record — and using updated measurement techniques rather than error-ridden outdated ones — reduces the long-term (1909 to 2009) New Zealand warming trend from today’s +0.91°C to +0.28°C, a 325% change.

NIWA still have made no reply to the de Freitas et al. paper. I’m sure they would have if they had disagreed with it; they obviously recognise its value.

If NIWA haven’t published their own methodology they can scarcely claim their method superior, as they did during the application for judicial review in 2012. It also means they cannot reasonably argue with the amount of long-term warming in New Zealand — 0.28°C. Regardless of the global warming hypothesis, science shows there’s been no significant warming in New Zealand.

Mr Richard concludes by putting the de Freitas et al. paper in a stunning global context:

A few days ago, a compilation of over 50 temperature graphs from peer-reviewed scientific papers  revealed that large regions of the Earth have not been warming in recent decades, and that modern temperatures are still some of the coldest of the last 10,000 years.  Apparently the nation of New Zealand can now be added to this list as a region where no significant changes in temperature have taken place within the last 150 years.
Where has all the warming gone?

504 Thoughts on “NIWA scientists agree de Freitas climate paper streets ahead?

  1. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 10:50 am said:

    Richard C (NZ): 3 is just stuff you are making up yourself Dennis. The paper says nothing of this

    DNH [3. In AA the GHGs are not receiving energy from the surface so there is a net cooling.]

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
    Abstract
    CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.

    The abstract says exactly what I tried to explain to you. The loss to space here is greater than the gain from the surface. This is NOT true elsewhere, the article actually says that.

    You are contradicting what the article says because you think like a refrigeration fitter. You cannot get it into your head that CO2 cools and warms, just as an electric radiator cools and warms.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 10:52 am said:

    Maggy

    >”A couple of days back (8 Oct, 1:14pm; 1:47pm ) when presenting info from the NIWA 7SS you mentioned an abrupt +0.25C rise from 1997… Any thoughts whether this was a mathematical artifact (a fudge) or a climate shift?”

    Re “mathematical artifact (a fudge)”. No. Since about 1970 the 7SS adjustments are non-contentious. More recently there has been a conversion to automated weather systems (AWS). Without checking I think I’m safe to say most if not all of the 7SS Reference sites are AWS. Reference sites being the current open site for a location. Again without checking, site changes going back in time from Reference will probably occur around 1997 but not all at once in the same year. And the site changes around that time were not an adjustment issue anyway.

    Re “climate shift”. Certainly a climate shift around 1977 (see NIWA below). 1998 is ill-defined but NiWA says this:

    Decadal Variability

    NIWA scientists have recently identified a long-lasting “shift” in New Zealand’s climate that occurred around 1977 (Salinger and Mullan, 1999). The shift was characterised by more persistent westerlies on to central New Zealand since 1977, resulting in the west and south of the South Island being about 10% wetter and 5 % cloudier with more damaging floods. The north and east of the North Island have on average been 10% drier and 5% sunnier, compared to 1951-76 data. This changepoint of 1977 coincided with an eastward movement in the longitude of the South Pacific Convergence Zone, and more frequent El Nino events in the recent record.

    This shift is probably due mainly to a Pacific-wide natural fluctuation that in the USA is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, Mantua et al., 1997), which exhibits phase reversals about once every 20-30 years. The influence of the PDO is well-known in the North Pacific, and has recently also been noted in Australian rainfall ( Power et al., 1998), and in the South Pacific Salinger et al., 2001; Folland et al., 2002). Scientists from Pacific Island countries attending a workshop in Auckland in November 2001 put out a press release suggesting the PDO underwent another phase reversal in 1998. Note that in New Zealand, Australia and U.K. this oscillation is referred to as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO).

    Long-term warming trends are superimposed on these decadal climate variations. Individual El Nino events bring cooler conditions to New Zealand (see our El Niño page linked to below). However, since 1977 temperatures have continued to rise, resulting in warmer night time temperatures and fewer frosts nationwide, and a increase in very hot days in eastern areas in recent decades.

    See 7SS graph and page >>>>>>
    https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/pastclimate

    Their post 1977 “long-term-warming trend” is completely bogus as can be seen from their graph.

    There are 2 trends. 1970 – 1997 and 1997 to present (BEST NZ data confirms this). Both are either dead flat or cooling a little. The shift occurred at the El Nino between the 2 on the 1998 side. Obviously if you slap a linear trend on 1970 – present you will get a linear increase but a linear trend does not represent the data over that period. A curve shows a pronounced peaking in the 21st Century. A moving average shows little change 1970 – 1997, an abrupt shift, then a long slow return to pre 1998 levels (not there yet).

    I don’t know of any papers that document a shift at 1998 in respect to NZ except for the above. 1977 was the big one in the Pacific but the effect on the 7SS was minimal. 1998 and thereafter had a far greater effect.

    Maybe I’m missing something somewhere but seems to me NIWA are staying very quiet about NZ temperature since 1990. Remember that their IPCC-based predictions are in respect to 1990. But even with an El Nino shift at 1998 the current observations are cooler than their prediction from 1990 to 2040 here:

    Climate change scenarios for New Zealand
    https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/scenarios

    “All-scenario average 0.9°C by 2040”. 0.18°C/decade. Observations are tracking lower than this trajectory.

    Nowhere does NIWA (or MfE) plot this prediction against observations. Same with the SLR predictions.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 10:58 am said:

    >”The abstract says exactly what I tried to explain to you.”

    Abstract – “CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space.”

    Yes. CO2 is a TRANSFER medium. More CO2, more efficient TRANSFER. But you still have not identified the most important near-surface factor in respect to TRANSFER Dennis, what is it?

    >”The loss to space here is greater than the gain from the surface.”

    Now look at the PAPER’S reason for this as I’ve quoted above. And look at their methodology. Quote that.

  4. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 11:00 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    It has been shown beyond any doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect is to return most energy from the surface back to the surface while losing some to space. So it is a primary forcing.

    There is also an amplifying feedback because warming oceans release CO2.

    Somewhere along the path to reality you have taken the wrong turn and lost your way, condemned to go round in circles for the rest of your life. Along with the others who follow you.

  5. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 11:14 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    You still have a problem understanding it?

    Consider a tank with two taps and a vacuum pump attached to one. With the pump going and the other tap closed you will lower the pressure in the tank. With the other tap open you won’t because there is a supply of air to the tank.

    CO2 and GHGS act the same way as the vacuum pump in this thought experiment.

    Please don’t tell me LR is not air. Please don’t ask me to cite a paper or do the experiment. Please don’t tell me you don’t do “thought experiments”. Just think!

  6. “There is also an amplifying feedback because warming oceans release CO2.”

    if there is this amplifying effect, then why didn’t the planet burn up millions of years ago?

    Of course, this is a a typical “denier question” (only “deniers” ask questions. A general sign of a “denier” is someone that asks questions)

    I expect this “denier question” has been debunked, prebunked and furiously tweeted about by “experts”

    But it is still an interesting question, if you are a “denier”, anyway

  7. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 11:49 am said:

    >”Nowhere does NIWA (or MfE) plot this prediction against observations. Same with the SLR predictions.”

    ‘Climate Change Projections for New Zealand Atmospheric projections based on simulations undertaken for the IPCC 5th Assessment’

    Published in June 2016 by the Ministry for the Environment
    https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/nz-climate-change-projections-final.pdf

    “Part of the New Zealand warming trend is probably due to natural variability (Salinger &
    Mullan, 1999; Mullan et al, 2010), but a significant contribution to the warming can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases (Dean & Stott, 2009).”

    “In this report, projections are given for all four RCPs, and for three future time periods which
    are usually abbreviated as 2040, 2090 and 2110. The three time periods represent changes for
    the 20-year periods 2031–50, 2081–2100 and 2101–20, respectively, relative to the baseline
    1986–2005. This is the same baseline as used in the IPCC AR5 Report (IPCC, 2013), and is the
    last 20 years of what CMIP5 refer to as the “historical period”.”

    [Click on index to go direct to….]

    Table 3: Periods of the regional climate model (RCM) simulations, for each the six
    CMIP5 models and pathways. Four models go beyond 2100, and so are
    available for 2110 projections. The ranks are taken from Table 4 27

    Figure 3: Surface air temperature variations from 1900 to 2005, relative to 1986–2005, for 41
    historical model simulations as averaged over the “New Zealand box” (land and ocean,
    33–48°S by 160–190°E, used for the statistical downscaling), and for the New Zealand
    seven-station series (land only, NZT7)

    Table 5: Projected changes in seasonal and annual mean temperature (in °C) between 1986–2005
    and 2031–2050, by region, as derived from statistical downscaling. The changes are given for four RCPs (8.5, 6.0, 4.5 and 2.6), where the ensemble-average is taken over (41, 18, 37, 23) models respectively

    # # #

    1) Note this is a complete change of story from the IPCC’s AR4 baseline which is the baseline for NIWA’s ‘Climate change scenarios for New Zealand’ linked previously. That baseline is the average of 1980 – 1999 centred on 1990, NOT “1986–2005”:

    Downscaling to New Zealand

    The New Zealand downscaled projections follow the IPCC Fourth Assessment approach. That is, changes are relative to 1980-1999, which we abbreviate as “1990” for convenience. Changes are calculated for the two future periods 2030-2049 (“2040” for short) and 2080-2099 (“2090”). Thus, the New Zealand projections are 50 and 100 year changes, between the baseline climate (centred on 1990) and future periods centred on 2040 and 2090. Figure 2 provides a schematic for the time horizons of the climate projections.

    https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/scenarios

    2) There is no provision made to track the validity or otherwise of these projections.

    3) Historical 20th Century simulations are nothing like the 7SS (red, NZT7) in Figure 3.

    4) MfE are complicit with NIWA in their “projection” game of guessing the future and neither impose any rigour or accountability on their guesses i.e. no on-going tracking of projections vs observations. Their 7SS (NZT7) stops at 2005.

    5) This is pseudo-science.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 11:57 am said:

    >“Part of the New Zealand warming trend is probably due to natural variability (Salinger &
    Mullan, 1999; Mullan et al, 2010), but a significant contribution to the warming can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases (Dean & Stott, 2009).”

    ‘The Effect of Local Circulation Variability on the Detection and Attribution of New Zealand Temperature Trends ‘

    S. M. Dean National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand
    P. A. Stott Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
    (2009)

    Abstract

    A representative temperature record for New Zealand based on station data from 1853 onward is used in conjunction with four coupled climate models to investigate the causes of recent warming over this small midlatitude country. The observed variability over interannual and decadal time scales is simulated well by the models. The variability of simulated 50-yr trends is consistent with the very short observational record. For a simple detection analysis it is not possible to separate the observed 30- and 50-yr temperature trends from the distribution created by internal variability in the model control simulations. A pressure index that is representative of meridional flow (M1) is used to show that the models fail to simulate an observed trend to more southerly flows in the region. The strong relationship between interannual temperature variability and the M1 index in both the observations and the models is used to remove the influence of this circulation variability from the temperature records. Recent 50-yr trends in the residual temperature record cannot be explained by natural climate variations, but they are consistent with the combined climate response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion, and sulfate aerosols, demonstrating a significant human influence on New Zealand warming. This result highlights the effect of circulation variability on regional detection and attribution analyses. Such variability can either mask or accelerate human-induced warming in observed trends, underscoring the importance of determining the underlying forced trend, and the need to adequately capture regional circulation effects in climate models.

    Full Text
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2715.1

  9. Maggy Wassilieff on October 12, 2016 at 12:04 pm said:

    @Dennis

    I read the original comments by Steve Mosher on Judith Curry’s site…

    I gather he has a degree in English…..
    so good of you to correct his spelling of “competent.” (He spells it as COMPETANT)
    Such a pity you didn’t pick up on his site/cite

    Anyway the references I was suggesting as being interesting were those mentioned in Belolipetsky’s comments; i.e.:

    1. Belolipetsky et al. 2015. Hidden staircase signal in recent climate dynamic. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 51, 323-330.
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pavel_Belolipetsky/publication/284879739_Hidden_staircase_signal_in_recent_climate_dynamic/links/565bc41208ae1ef92980fba7.pdf

    2. Jones and Ricketts 2016. Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales. Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 2016, 1-52.
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roger_Jones6/publication/305989759_Reconciling_the_signal_and_noise_of_atmospheric_warming_on_decadal_timescales/links/57a91bf908aed1b226244e87.pdf

    3. Reid et al. 2016. Global impacts of the 1980s regime shift. Global Change Biology, 22, 682-703.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284484997_Global_impacts_of_the_1980s_regime_shift

  10. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 12:13 pm said:

    Dean & Stott’s 7SS is from 1853 onward:

    “A representative temperature record for New Zealand based on station data from 1853 onward is used….”

    Fig. 1. Annual global mean surface temperature from the HadCRUT3v dataset (thick gray line) and annual mean temperature from the seven-station New Zealand temperature series (thin black line). The New Zealand temperature series is also shown after having a 20-point low-pass filter applied (thick black line). All data are normalized to the period of 1971–2000. Major tropical volcanic eruptions during the twentieth century are also marked.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2009/15200442-22.23/2009jcli2715.1/production/images/large/i1520-0442-22-23-6217-f01.jpeg

    There was obviously a warm period in the mid 1800s. There is a pronounced cooling from 1853 – 1945.

    Dean & Stott (2009) turns NIWA’s 7SS assertion on its ear. There is obviously no “unequivocal” “0.92 C/Century” warming in NZ temperature. There is LESS than 0.4C difference between 1853 and 2005. In between there was a very cool period.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm said:

    Dean & Stott:

    “The observed variability over interannual and decadal time scales is simulated well by the models.”

    What a load of BS.

    ‘Climate Change Projections for New Zealand Atmospheric projections based on simulations undertaken for the IPCC 5th Assessment’ – June 2016 Ministry for the Environment
    https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/nz-climate-change-projections-final.pdf

    Figure 3: Surface air temperature variations from 1900 to 2005, relative to 1986–2005, for 41
    historical model simulations as averaged over the “New Zealand box” (land and ocean,
    33–48°S by 160–190°E, used for the statistical downscaling), and for the New Zealand
    seven-station series (land only, NZT7)

    # # #

    “Simulated well by the models” means getting on the same graph on the same page apparently.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 12:46 pm said:

    Dean & Stott:

    2. Datasets

    a. The New Zealand temperature series

    The New Zealand temperature series (NZTS) was first outlined in Salinger (1980a), but has been subsequently updated and revised. The following seven locations were used to create the series: Auckland, Masterton, Wellington, Hokitika, Nelson, Christchurch, and Dunedin. The series consists of uninterrupted monthly mean temperatures from 1853 to 2006, though stations are included in the series only as they became available. All seven stations are included from 1907 onward, increasing the representativeness of the record from this point. The stations used in the record were carefully chosen not only for their record lengths, but also in order to be representative of the temperature variations observed across New Zealand resulting from the complex topography and varying exposure to atmospheric and oceanic circulations (Salinger 1980b). For each station the data have been carefully considered with regards to homogeneity, quality of the observations, environmental changes in the surroundings, and the different types of instrumentation used (see Rhoades and Salinger 1993 for details). In this study, annual means are calculated from the monthly data, but rather than for calendar years we calculate the annual mean from December of the preceding year through to November of the assigned year. Hence, the first year in the annual mean NZTS used here is 1854 rather than 1853. This was necessary for consistency because some of the model data were only available as seasonal means, with summer defined as consisting of the months of December–February, and so on.

    Fig. 1. Annual global mean surface temperature from the HadCRUT3v dataset (thick gray line) and annual mean temperature from the seven-station New Zealand temperature series (thin black line). The New Zealand temperature series is also shown after having a 20-point low-pass filter applied (thick black line).
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2009/15200442-22.23/2009jcli2715.1/production/images/large/i1520-0442-22-23-6217-f01.jpeg

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2715.1

    New Zealand seven station instrument temperature data defined (7SS, NZT7). And nothing at all like the BEST NZ series even after all the 7SS “adjustments”:

    BEST: Regional Climate Change: New Zealand
    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/new-zealand
    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Figures/new-zealand-TAVG-Trend.png

    Small wonder NIWA does not have the Dean & Stott 7SS up in lights.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm said:

    The Dean & Stott 7SS from 1853 conforms to my EMD analysis of the 7SS from 1909 I did here at CCG a while back:

    Dean & Stott 7SS from 1953
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2009/15200442-22.23/2009jcli2715.1/production/images/large/i1520-0442-22-23-6217-f01.jpeg

    7SS from 1909: The EMD comparison with the anomalously cool years, 1912 and 1930, removed.
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/pics/7ss-emd-trial-520.jpg

    From NZ vs S. Hemisphere temperatures
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/01/nz-vs-s-hemisphere-temperatures/

  14. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 12:57 pm said:

    Should be:

    “Dean & Stott 7SS from [1853]”

  15. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 1:58 pm said:

    >”Small wonder NIWA does not have the Dean & Stott 7SS up in lights.”

    It WAS up in lights at NIWA. That version can be seen here:

    Are we feeling warmer yet?
    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm

    From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).
    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/Image1.gif

    And it STILL IS up in lights at MfE:

    ‘Environment New Zealand 2007’
    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/environment-new-zealand-2007-chapter-8-atmosphere/introduction

    Figure 8.1: New Zealand average surface temperature, 1853–2006
    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/pubs/7.4_0.jpg

    Never went away in Dean & Stott either:

    Dean and Stott (2009) Figure 1. Annual global mean surface temperature from the HadCRUT3v dataset (thick gray line) and annual mean temperature from the seven-station New Zealand temperature series (thin black line). The New Zealand temperature series is also shown after having a 20-point low-pass filter applied (thick black line).[1853 – 2006]
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2009/15200442-22.23/2009jcli2715.1/production/images/large/i1520-0442-22-23-6217-f01.jpeg

    # # #

    The 1853 7SS lives on.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 2:04 pm said:

    NZCSC on unadjusted 7SS:

    “The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.”

    MfE:

    “a significant contribution to the [7SS] warming [since 1853] can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases (Dean & Stott, 2009).”

  17. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 5:16 pm said:

    Maggy Wassilieff: Hidden staircase signal in recent climate dynamic, Belolipetsky et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284879739_Hidden_staircase_signal_in_recent_climate_dynamic
    “Staircase signal suggests the existence of some regulation mechanism in climate system. This mechanism should maintain global temperature adjusted for El Nino Southern Oscillation near stable in 1950-1987, 1988- 1997 and 1998-2014 periods nevertheless all the time growing forcing due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”

    No, it doesn’t show the existence of any “hidden variables”. Earth is retaining more energy as shown by the clear upward trends in global mean surface temperatures, ocean temperatures, ice melting/being lost, rate sea level rise.

    Making a staircase of the surface temperatures is nonsense. More junk science hailed by desperate deniers.

  18. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 5:30 pm said:

    Hey, diddle, diddle,
    Deniers on the fiddle
    The loons are over the moon
    The scientists laughed
    To see such sport
    And Maggy ran away with Magoon

  19. Maggy Wassilieff on October 12, 2016 at 5:45 pm said:

    And Maggy ran away with Magoon

    Dear Magoon’

    I know we haven’t been introduced, but if you are very, very rich, decrepit and desperate to offload your immense wealth on a runaway, then I’m a starter for a trip to exotic climes (to check out the weather, of course).

  20. Sure thing Maggy, I’ll ditch the wife and book the trip to Tahiti right away (all in the name of science of course).

    BTW: it’s Magoo, not Magoon – Dennis is an bumbling illiterate who can’t spell properly, and whose poetry resembles that of Blackadder’s Baldrick.

  21. Maggy Wassilieff on October 12, 2016 at 6:25 pm said:

    @Magoo

    great, Wifey can tag along if she wants…. always handy to have someone carrying the bags.

    My #1 hubby doesn’t travel, so no encumbrances, my end.

  22. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 6:24 am said:

    “it’s Magoo not Magoon – Dennis is an bumbling illiterate who can’t spell properly”

    Sorry, Magoof.

  23. LOL! Case in point ^^^^.

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation