SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Just cleared 400 ppm, A reord high!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43864
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 5:12 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years
By Brad Plumer, Published: May 8, 2013


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....0-years

"The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.
Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an average daily level above 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions under control are faltering..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013....ted=all

Not that we couldn't see it coming;
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Then it comes to mind: Where's the right wing wacko blogs coverge of this? And why is there no outrage on their coverup?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7316
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 5:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ May 11 2013, 5:12 pm)
QUOTE
Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years
By Brad Plumer, Published: May 8, 2013


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....0-years

"The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.
Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an average daily level above 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions under control are faltering..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013....ted=all

Not that we couldn't see it coming;
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Then it comes to mind: Where's the right wing wacko blogs coverge of this? And why is there no outrage on their coverup?

Wait, what?

"Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years" AND the carbon-dioxide levels reached "a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years"?

The math seems a little fuzzy.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5967
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 6:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Seems a bit odd.  WaPo says it has been higher for decades than any temperature in 800,000 years.

It goes on to say:

"In fact, even that’s probably an understatement. Recent studies have estimated that current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are at their highest levels since the Pliocene, the geologic era between five million and three million years ago"

Which agrees with the NYTimes? , though it points out this is just an estimate.
Sounds like 400 is a milestone like the DOW hitting 15000, not that this is the exact amount needed to surpass levels of 3 to 5 million years ago?

I think I read not too long ago that temps. on earth haven't warmed as much as predicted in the last decade, and are actually flat. Still no one was saying GW isn't real.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43864
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 8:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

dayhiker9 ? Not temperature, carbon dioxide.

"Special note on May 9, 2013 reading
May 10, 2013
May 10 Comment:
NOAA has reported 400.03 for May 9, 2013, while Scripps has reported 399.73. The difference partly reflects different reporting periods. NOAA uses UTC, whereas Scripps uses local time in Hawaii to define the 24-hr reporting period. If Scripps were to use same reporting period as NOAA, we would report 400.08 for May 9."

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/special-note-on-may-9-2013-reading/

As one person wrote, an "odometer" moment, but an opportunity to once again note that inexorable trend in carbon dioxide concentration so elegantly displayed on the Keeling Plot.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43864
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 8:37 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ May 11 2013, 2:55 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ May 11 2013, 5:12 pm)
QUOTE
Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years
By Brad Plumer, Published: May 8, 2013


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....0-years

"The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.
Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an average daily level above 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions under control are faltering..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013....ted=all

Not that we couldn't see it coming;
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Then it comes to mind: Where's the right wing wacko blogs coverge of this? And why is there no outrage on their coverup?

Wait, what?

"Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years" AND the carbon-dioxide levels reached "a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years"?

The math seems a little fuzzy.

:D

Hardly, varying sources of information.

WHICh, of course, the article actually addressed in both the title and body.

"Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years
By Brad Plumer, Published: May 8, 2013

"From studying air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists know that going back 800,000 years, the carbon dioxide level oscillated in a tight band, from about 180 parts per million in the depths of ice ages to about 280 during the warm periods between. The evidence shows that global temperatures and CO2 levels are tightly linked.

For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000 years, the carbon dioxide level was relatively stable near that upper bound. But the burning of fossil fuels has caused a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since the Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and scientists say the climate is beginning to react, though they expect far larger changes in the future.

Indirect measurements suggest that the last time the carbon dioxide level was this high was at least three million years ago, during an epoch called the Pliocene. Geological research shows that the climate then was far warmer than today, the world’s ice caps were smaller, and the sea level might have been as much as 60 or 80 feet higher."

One cited datum gives the title number while another set of information extends the concentration back further: no doubt why the writers used the term "at least" in front of that "800,000" number as well as the three million, setting limits to how far back that data extends rather than establishing a hard ending. . That's in the bit you quoted yourself. Don't know what "at least" means"? Start a thread on it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5967
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 8:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Well I was referring to CO2 , until my last sentence.  The consistency there is the worry over CO2 is of course the rise in temperature, though acidification of the oceans is no small problem.

http://www.economist.com/news....issions


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43864
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 8:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(dayhiker9 @ May 11 2013, 5:39 pm)
QUOTE
Well I was referring to CO2 , until my last sentence.  The consistency there is the worry over CO2 is of course the rise in temperature, though acidification of the oceans is no small problem.

http://www.economist.com/news....issions

I was referring to the second sentence on the first line of your post: The first line of your post "Seems a bit odd.  WaPo says it has been higher for decades than any temperature in 800,000 years."

Which I didn't see in the Washington Post article myself.

Beyond that temperature, like climate and weather, has a lot of additional inputs. The rise in CO2 indicates a rising ability for the atmosphere to trap incoming solar energy as outgoing heat energy is radiated CO2 chemical structure making it more able to absorb in the infrared portion of the light spectrum, which is where the earth radiates energy going out that has been absorbed across the wider solar spectrum that irradiates the earth itself, but how that specifically plays out is a lot more complex than a thermometer reading.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5967
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 8:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE


Which I didn't see in the Washington Post article myself.


LOL , OK you are correct.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43864
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 8:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I liked that Economist article but i didn't see any reference to variations in Solar input to the Earth? Especially when looking at greenhouse gas effects input would seem crucial. It's not a constant over geologic time frames after all.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43864
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 9:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(dayhiker9 @ May 11 2013, 5:51 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE


Which I didn't see in the Washington Post article myself.


LOL , OK you are correct.

The nightmare of doing my own editing, seeing what I meant to write and not what I actually typed.

A university friend's dad had that happen to him at the University of Chicago ( where he later worked on the Manhattan Project so things worked out). He'd successfully concluded his doctoral thesis defense and on the way out one of the committee members congratulated him and then as an aside pointed out that the element that was the focus of his work, Fluorine, had been misspelled throughout his entire thesis manuscript... No doubt immortalized to this day in the university library where copies are always deposited.  


Oops.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5967
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 9:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

gas not grass HSF

--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43864
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 9:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(dayhiker9 @ May 11 2013, 6:13 pm)
QUOTE
gas not grass HSF

Proof!

:D

That's why the red squiggles are a tad evil. Unless the spellchecker highlights something truly gibberish a typo, error, or helpful auto type fantasy will sit there unnoticed and uncaught as the eye skims from red wiggle line to red wiggle line.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5967
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 11 2013, 9:20 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I should double check that economist article with something like real climate, as you point out there are allot of variables in the earth's temperature.  Still a model with a range of temps. should consider that, or maybe not?  And EC seemed to imply it was a puzzle (ie not offsetting factor had been found)

I did find now where Hansen speculated on this, still too lazy to search RC.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf

Somewhere else I think El Nino and El Nuno? might explain it?


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 12 2013, 1:52 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What is the solution?

Even if doubters of global warming in the U.S. changed their minds and there was bipartisan concensus on C02 emissions, exactly what would we do to limit C02? Some Democrats have proposed cap-and-trade to limit C02, and there has been some government investment in alternative energy research which has not yielded much. Anything else we could do?

Cap-and-trade would be very risky for our economy, wouldn't it? Since we have no viable alternative to burning fossile fuel, wouldn't fewer C02 emissions mean disaster for our economy?

And what, really, are most Americans who are alarmed about global warming doing in their personal lives to reduce emissions? I bet every American who worries about the South American rain forests produces 20 times the C02 of the average South American. It also seems like, now and then, we help various third world people modernize, which leads to more C02.

I don't think a good plan has been developed to address the C02 emissions and they will continue to rise. But there was a guy who appeared on Bill Maher's show a few weeks ago who said the soil could absorb enough C02 to solve the problem if certain farming techniques were implemented.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5219
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 12 2013, 12:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

While we can't replace carbon quickly in all of it's applications, there is perfectly effective technology available for replacing a good deal of it. A carbon tax would make fossil fuels less attractive, but why not just close the loopholes that now exist? China and Germany have the political will to invest in greener technologies. Now that money goes to a propaganda campaign to elect fossil fuel friendly politicians and to convince people that 1) the science is a hoax and 2) addressing the problem will wreck the economy; both of which are BS.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 13 2013, 3:46 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Eco, the danger  to the economy of reducing hydrocarbon fuel consumption before a viable alternative is found is 1970's-type stagflation.  This is according to the professor of a macroeconomics class I took a couple years ago at the local community college, not some right-wing oil-money propaganda.

The stagflation caused by the oil embargo back then was due to a drop in the ecomomy's aggregate supply, whereas a normal recession is caused by a drop in aggregate demand. In a normal recession, unemployment rises while prices remain stable or even drop a little--no inflation. But with stagflation, both unemployment and prices rise.

A shortage of energy would effect every part of the economy and result in a drop in aggregate supply. If we inflict an energy shortage on ourselves the effect would be the same as the OPEC embargo of the '70's. Well, that was the professor's take on it, anyway.

Of course one thing we could  do to reduce emissions is to gradually switch to natural gas and away from fuels with a higher carbon to hydrogen ratio (but then we have to trust the fracking companies not to pollute the ground water). Another suggestion I've heard is to invest in solar panels on the roofs of people's houses instead of the big complexes in the middle of the desert.

I'm not sure what China is doing, but I know Germany is phasing out nuclear power and trying to replace it with solar and wind, but projections are that solar and wind cannot make up for all the nuclear energy they will give up. We might learn a lot from their experience in the upcoming years, though, and copy what works well.

But as the world's population and demand for energy continues to grow, it seems like CO2 output will keep going up despite progress in renewable energy. The  progress in renewable energy is too slow to keep up. Some kind of major breakthrough is needed.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24415
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 13 2013, 7:04 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ May 11 2013, 4:55 pm)
QUOTE
"Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years" AND the carbon-dioxide levels reached "a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years"?

The math seems a little fuzzy.

Yea, almost as unbelievable as thinking that every living animal lived within walking distance of Noahs house, eh?

--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 18
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5967
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 13 2013, 7:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://www.nytimes.com/2013....idemics

But that can't be too good for the economy either.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5219
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 13 2013, 8:10 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yes George, but there are electric cars and hybrids now. Higher standards for gas mileage are the key here. Don't forget that the interest rates at that time were sky high which contributed much to stagflation.

We cannot achieve the goals immediately. They must be ramped up to give the economy and manufacturing a chance to adapt. All sources of CO2 would not be impacted at the same time, measures would have to be implemented in an intelligent way.

The problem is that we have done nothing but quibble for a decade. Industry has taken an initiative, but it was dedicated to misinformation.


--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10232
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 13 2013, 9:14 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I call BS. I woke up to snow this morning, and record lows are forecast tonight.

Theory = busted. :p


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 13 2013, 3:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yeah, Eco, electric cars could help reduce emissions---especially if the batteries are charged from power plants converted to burn natural gas. Another thing we could do is build better insulated houses and design them to take advantage of the sun. Houses should have a lot of south facing glass in cold regions, but, in the housing tracts we have been building, the houses all have the same floor plans and are randomly oriented to the sun. And that's what sells in America.

There is a segment of the population that denies global warming and a segment that acknowledges it and is willing to do something about it. There is also a segment that acknowledges the possibility of human caused global warming, but is not too alarmed about it and not willing to give up anything to address it. That's why I think we'll be too slow to change and co2 will keep rising. I'm not sure what it will take to get a shift in America's thinking.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5219
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 13 2013, 4:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Constructive thinking, that is where architects and builders have failed us, but of course buyers are the big problem. The financial guys are behind the curve as well. I have reservations about nuclear power, but I do think that we have working technologies where good design could be very green, the amount of capitol required should make even greener technologies appealing.

Considering the billions required for a nuke plant, how hard would it be for utilities to make that capitol available for loans or leases for roof top solar panels? Payback for that tech is about 10 years now (what is it for any other kind of power plant?), and the advantage to the utility is a distributed source of power which puts less load on it's distribution system.

Implementation of a smart grid, will change everything. Parked electric cars that are plugged in, can become a distributed peaking system, further spreading the strain and the cost compared to our old system. So long as energy is cheap, we have little incentive to work for greater efficiency. A carbon tax can help offset the health costs of fossil fuels and provide funds for researching better systems for supply energy. This is far too big for private enterprise to tackle, despite the potential return on that investment.


--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43864
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 13 2013, 5:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There were attempts. A university buddy was involved in one such attempt (aligned to the sun, plantings etc.) so the knowledge was out there. defeated by people not then caring about energy costs as costs went down a bit...

http://www.ecocomposite.org/building/villagehomes.htm

http://villagehomesdavis.org
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5219
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 14 2013, 7:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ May 13 2013, 9:14 am)
QUOTE
I call BS. I woke up to snow this morning, and record lows are forecast tonight.

Theory = busted. :p

The forecast is for 95 in Minneapolis tomorrow. There is nothing simple about climate.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10232
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 9:04 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ecocentric @ May 14 2013, 7:23 pm)
QUOTE

(WalksWithBlackflies @ May 13 2013, 9:14 am)
QUOTE
I call BS. I woke up to snow this morning, and record lows are forecast tonight.

Theory = busted. :p

The forecast is for 95 in Minneapolis tomorrow. There is nothing simple about climate.

That data doesn't support my assertion, so I'm going to ignore it.

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
24 replies since May 11 2013, 5:12 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Just cleared 400 ppm
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions