Y2K Bug In NASA Climate Data

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Y2K Bug In NASA Climate Data (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 8/9/2007 7:55:06 PM EDT

Blogger Find Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

"Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

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

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

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

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media."

Posted: 8/9/2007 9:36:01 PM EDT

[#1]

This could be just the beginning of hidden Y2K problems.

Posted: 8/9/2007 9:43:11 PM EDT

[#2]

interesting.

Where's Al Gore when you need him?

Posted: 8/10/2007 4:27:11 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
interesting.

Where's Al Gore when you need him?

I'm willing to bet he'll never mention this article in any speech. It'd probably cut into his profits too much.

Posted: 8/10/2007 4:37:33 AM EDT

[#4]

This will take the wind out of the sails for a lot of environmental wacos.

Posted: 8/10/2007 4:41:48 AM EDT

[#5]

I'm not surprised about this really - the whole global warming machine is run on scam, falsehoods, misinformation, and lies.

I also doubt this will get much attention at all.

-K

Posted: 8/10/2007 5:14:20 AM EDT

[#6]

Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:05:05 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

You are making the assumption that your being "sensibly environmental" has anything to do with the Earth's temperature.

Look, do what you want OK? Just don't support people who want tyrannical control over every facet of our lives.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:11:15 AM EDT

[#8]

I've been burning trash since I was a kid and the temperture the next day never went any higher or lower not matter how much trash I burned.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:12:17 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
This will take the wind out of the sails for a lot of environmental wacos.

Just like the SciAm article about it being IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a "global temperature"? Yeah, right.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:18:25 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Facts are not allowed in GW threads...

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:20:58 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with being sensibly environmental but exactly the opposite.

Global Warming hysteria detracts focus form real environmental problems we can do something about and wastes tens of billions of dollars that could be spent on real environmental problems.

Global Warming fanatics are in fact enemies of responsible environmental policy… but then Global Warming is not about the environment but about control of economies.

ETA: I am shocked that NASA has once again been caught (and not by their own admission) of using faulty data and someone would just blow it off as it that information was not important… NASA has been caught one too many times fudging data to be considered a reliable objective source of information.

So you dont think we should spend any money on GW at all? No matter the cause, it would be to our advantage to understand GW the best we can. This invloves spending money.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:32:28 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with being sensibly environmental but exactly the opposite.

Global Warming hysteria detracts focus form real environmental problems we can do something about and wastes tens of billions of dollars that could be spent on real environmental problems.

Global Warming fanatics are in fact enemies of responsible environmental policy… but then Global Warming is not about the environment but about control of economies.

ETA: I am shocked that NASA has once again been caught (and not by their own admission) of using faulty data and someone would just blow it off as it that information was not important… NASA has been caught one too many times fudging data to be considered a reliable objective source of information.

So you dont think we should spend any money on GW at all? No matter the cause, it would be to our advantage to understand GW the best we can. This invloves spending money.

We should spend ZERO dollars studying global warming, we should spend a much smaller amount now spent studying GW to study climate. The is no reason, excuse, or need for the US should be spending 4 BILLION dollars on GW and worldwide maybe 20 BILLION total and that not counting the BILLIONS and BILLIONS collateral money wasted by unneeded regulation and worthless con games like “carbon credits”.

95% of the money spent to study global warming is pure waste… 100% of the money spent on “solutions” is waste.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:35:15 AM EDT

[#13]

I love how the responses to the blog have people yammering about how temps have gone up and up since 1880, but they fail to mention the Medeval Warm period equals the temps we have now.... hmmm

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:37:10 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

The problem is that the global warming idiots are not being sensible. For example, electric cars. The kind you plug in at night. Battery charging systems are not effective in that you get a nominal return for the amount of energy you use to charge the battery. (look at the fact that you have to charge a camcorder for 12 hours to get 2 hours battery use). Then, the amount of pollution generated in creating the electricity used to charge that battery is greater than would be created by a properly tuned 4 cyl. engine. The amount of pollution generated to build solar panels, as well as the problems with disposing them after their useful life exceeds the amount of pollution saved by the electricity they generate.

This is why conservatives have problems with most of the liberal, tree hugging anti pollution BS.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:38:50 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with being sensibly environmental but exactly the opposite.

Global Warming hysteria detracts focus form real environmental problems we can do something about and wastes tens of billions of dollars that could be spent on real environmental problems.

Global Warming fanatics are in fact enemies of responsible environmental policy… but then Global Warming is not about the environment but about control of economies.

ETA: I am shocked that NASA has once again been caught (and not by their own admission) of using faulty data and someone would just blow it off as it that information was not important… NASA has been caught one too many times fudging data to be considered a reliable objective source of information.

So you dont think we should spend any money on GW at all? No matter the cause, it would be to our advantage to understand GW the best we can. This invloves spending money.

We should spend ZERO dollars studying global warming, we should spend a much smaller amount now spent studying GW to study climate. The is no reason, excuse, or need for the US should be spending 4 BILLION dollars on GW and worldwide maybe 20 BILLION total and that not counting the BILLIONS and BILLIONS collateral money wasted by unneeded regulation and worthless con games like “carbon credits”.

95% of the money spent to study global warming is pure waste… 100% of the money spent on “solutions” is waste.

I agree. To me it seems that way too much money is spent on GW. Especially in the billions of dollar range. To be fair though, I dont know where this money is being spent and to what type of research its going.

I agree that GW is natural, but I would like to know how much humans are effecting it if at all. When we know this it would be easier for me to say wether or not money should be spent on solutions.

Carbon Credits are a joke,.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:40:51 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I love how the responses to the blog have people yammering about how temps have gone up and up since 1880, but they fail to mention the Medeval Warm period equals the temps we have now.... hmmm

The Medieval Warm Period was 4 to 7 degrees warmer than we are now... meaning at current warming rates it will be 500 years before we get back to high temp. levels seen during The Medieval Warm Period.

And The Medieval Warm Period was considered a golden age.

There is no global warming crisis.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:41:42 AM EDT

[#17]

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:42:15 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with being sensibly environmental but exactly the opposite.

Global Warming hysteria detracts focus form real environmental problems we can do something about and wastes tens of billions of dollars that could be spent on real environmental problems.

Global Warming fanatics are in fact enemies of responsible environmental policy… but then Global Warming is not about the environment but about control of economies.

ETA: I am shocked that NASA has once again been caught (and not by their own admission) of using faulty data and someone would just blow it off as it that information was not important… NASA has been caught one too many times fudging data to be considered a reliable objective source of information.

So you dont think we should spend any money on GW at all? No matter the cause, it would be to our advantage to understand GW the best we can. This invloves spending money.

Send all the money you want... It's fucking stupid, but hey, it's your money!

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:43:44 AM EDT

[#19]

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:44:01 AM EDT

[#20]

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:44:28 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with being sensibly environmental but exactly the opposite.

Global Warming hysteria detracts focus form real environmental problems we can do something about and wastes tens of billions of dollars that could be spent on real environmental problems.

Global Warming fanatics are in fact enemies of responsible environmental policy… but then Global Warming is not about the environment but about control of economies.

ETA: I am shocked that NASA has once again been caught (and not by their own admission) of using faulty data and someone would just blow it off as it that information was not important… NASA has been caught one too many times fudging data to be considered a reliable objective source of information.

So you dont think we should spend any money on GW at all? No matter the cause, it would be to our advantage to understand GW the best we can. This invloves spending money.

We should spend ZERO dollars studying global warming, we should spend a much smaller amount now spent studying GW to study climate. The is no reason, excuse, or need for the US should be spending 4 BILLION dollars on GW and worldwide maybe 20 BILLION total and that not counting the BILLIONS and BILLIONS collateral money wasted by unneeded regulation and worthless con games like “carbon credits”.

95% of the money spent to study global warming is pure waste… 100% of the money spent on “solutions” is waste.

I agree. To me it seems that way too much money is spent on GW. Especially in the billions of dollar range. To be fair though, I dont know where this money is being spent and to what type of research its going.

I agree that GW is natural, but I would like to know how much humans are effecting it if at all. When we know this it would be easier for me to say wether or not money should be spent on solutions.

Carbon Credits are a joke,.

No, they are a way for Al (Global Warming/Internet Inventor) Gore to make money.

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:54:26 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with being sensibly environmental but exactly the opposite.

Global Warming hysteria detracts focus form real environmental problems we can do something about and wastes tens of billions of dollars that could be spent on real environmental problems.

Global Warming fanatics are in fact enemies of responsible environmental policy… but then Global Warming is not about the environment but about control of economies.

ETA: I am shocked that NASA has once again been caught (and not by their own admission) of using faulty data and someone would just blow it off as it that information was not important… NASA has been caught one too many times fudging data to be considered a reliable objective source of information.

So you dont think we should spend any money on GW at all? No matter the cause, it would be to our advantage to understand GW the best we can. This invloves spending money.

We should spend ZERO dollars studying global warming, we should spend a much smaller amount now spent studying GW to study climate. The is no reason, excuse, or need for the US should be spending 4 BILLION dollars on GW and worldwide maybe 20 BILLION total and that not counting the BILLIONS and BILLIONS collateral money wasted by unneeded regulation and worthless con games like “carbon credits”.

95% of the money spent to study global warming is pure waste… 100% of the money spent on “solutions” is waste.

I agree. To me it seems that way too much money is spent on GW. Especially in the billions of dollar range. To be fair though, I dont know where this money is being spent and to what type of research its going.

I agree that GW is natural, but I would like to know how much humans are effecting it if at all. When we know this it would be easier for me to say wether or not money should be spent on solutions.

Carbon Credits are a joke,.

No, they are a way for Al (Global Warming/Internet Inventor) Gore to make money.

And there we have it ladies and gentleman. The real reason for the global warming "crisis".

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:20:23 PM EDT

[#23]

The story on Slashdot, with a number of interesting comments:

science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/10/1530251

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:25:06 PM EDT

[#24]

Page two is mine!

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:27:16 PM EDT

[#25]

The data collection stations are pretty horrifying. They have photos of them at the site; lots of them are placed next to air conditioner exauhsts, on pavement, next to major heat sources, etc.

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:29:37 PM EDT

[#26]

Boy, ain't that a kick in the head.

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:30:14 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Page two is mine!

You were just waiting for that, weren't you?

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:32:30 PM EDT

[#28]

Tag for later.

I'm just shocked that the Media isn't reporting this.

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:37:07 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Tag for later.

I'm just shocked that the Media isn't reporting this.

The NYT will bury it on page 46, in very small print.

CNN will give a 20 second blurb at 0200.

And Al Gore is looking for ways to discredit those who question it.

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:40:26 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Tag for later.

I'm just shocked that the Media isn't reporting this.

Well, the general trend is still the same. This is not some GIANT breakthrough.

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:41:58 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This will take the wind out of the sails for a lot of environmental wacos.

Just like the SciAm article about it being IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a "global temperature"? Yeah, right.

SCIAM is about as liberal as you can get. They are shit journalism.

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:47:28 PM EDT

[#32]

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:52:58 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Facts are not allowed in GW threads...

In the 1930's the data also showed a "general upward trend". Then the ice age almost came.. then it didn't... So... ??

Posted: 8/10/2007 12:53:29 PM EDT

[#34]

It's nice to know that even the smart people, are dumb.

Posted: 8/10/2007 1:08:16 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Page two is mine!

You were just waiting for that, weren't you?

Nope, just saw it and leapt!

Posted: 8/10/2007 1:28:30 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Facts are not allowed in GW threads...

In the 1930's the data also showed a "general upward trend". Then the ice age almost came.. then it didn't... So... ??

Fluctuations are normal. If you would notice on the graphs, the trend is upwards.

Posted: 8/10/2007 1:30:16 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Facts are not allowed in GW threads...

In the 1930's the data also showed a "general upward trend". Then the ice age almost came.. then it didn't... So... ??

Fluctuations are normal. If you would notice on the graphs, the trend is upwards.

They would be since we are coming out of the Little Ice Age for the last 150 years.

Posted: 8/10/2007 1:33:34 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Facts are not allowed in GW threads...

In the 1930's the data also showed a "general upward trend". Then the ice age almost came.. then it didn't... So... ??

Fluctuations are normal. If you would notice on the graphs, the trend is upwards.

They would be since we are coming out of the Little Ice Age for the last 150 years.

What your point? I have never said GW was CAUSED by humans. I think we MIGHT have an effect on it, but I cant prove that obviously.

Posted: 8/10/2007 2:26:16 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
This will take the wind out of the sails for a lot of environmental wacos.

No it won't.

It'll go something like this:

With revised NASA temperatures, the threat of Global Warming is even worse than thought. Revised temperatures show that Global Warming first reared its head a decade or two before WWII.

Posted: 8/10/2007 2:33:58 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Tag for later.

I'm just shocked that the Media isn't reporting this.

Well, the general trend is still the same. This is not some GIANT breakthrough.

No, it's not giant, but it is another indication that 20 years of SUV's and me using my airconditioner isn't going to kill us all. A steady rise in temps over a 150 or 200 years is natural, not man made.

Posted: 8/10/2007 2:35:16 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This will take the wind out of the sails for a lot of environmental wacos.

No it won't.

It'll go something like this:

With revised NASA temperatures, the threat of Global Warming is even worse than thought. Revised temperatures show that Global Warming first reared its head a decade or two before WWII.

BINGO

NASA is going to try and spin this as if it is unimportant, even when they know it is important.

Posted: 8/10/2007 2:43:21 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Tag for later.

I'm just shocked that the Media isn't reporting this.

Well, the general trend is still the same. This is not some GIANT breakthrough.

What general trend would that be?

Are you looking at the trend from 1980, the trend from 1940?

How about the 100 year, 1000 year, 10,000 year, 100,000 year, 250,000 year, 2,000,000 year trends?

What trend?

For the past 2 million years the trend has been ice ages occuring on 100,000 year cycles with 90,000 years of ice and 10,000 years of warmth.

Ice is bad. Warmth is good.

We are currently about 10,000 years into an interglacial period. Normally, interglacial periods last 10,000 to 12,000 years but may last as long as 28,000.

There have been periods where the earth has had enormous areas covered in ice and periods where there was almost no ice at all.

Posted: 8/10/2007 2:56:54 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Tag for later.

I'm just shocked that the Media isn't reporting this.

Well, the general trend is still the same. This is not some GIANT breakthrough.

What general trend would that be?

Are you looking at the trend from 1980, the trend from 1940?

How about the 100 year, 1000 year, 10,000 year, 100,000 year, 250,000 year, 2,000,000 year trends?

What trend?

For the past 2 million years the trend has been ice ages occuring on 100,000 year cycles with 90,000 years of ice and 10,000 years of warmth.

Ice is bad. Warmth is good.

We are currently about 10,000 years into an interglacial period. Normally, interglacial periods last 10,000 to 12,000 years but may last as long as 28,000.

There have been periods where the earth has had enormous areas covered in ice and periods where there was almost no ice at all.

Look at the link posted.

Posted: 8/10/2007 2:59:23 PM EDT

[#44]

Just wait until 2038 when *nix machines run out of seconds in the clock.

Posted: 8/10/2007 4:18:54 PM EDT

[#45]

Warming of the Earth's atmosphere is cyclic. We are on an upswing. We all know this.

What I find interesting is that it corresponds with cycles in seismic activity at the ocean's deepest parts where "vents" of magma occur. This heats the water, which in-turn creates more clouds and rain, which trap more heat in the air.

But, I will not provide any sources nor will I allow any questioning of where I learned this.

Posted: 8/12/2007 12:28:04 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This will take the wind out of the sails for a lot of environmental wacos.

Somehow, I doubt it.

The hot air from their Soros Propaganda Machine* generates its own wind.

* For those unfamiliar with it, the Soros Propaganda Machine is the Dem equivalent of the Halliburton Hurricane Machine.

Major difference is the Soros Propaganda Machine is real... Moveon.org and many other radical leftis organizations are heavily funded by Soros.

Agreed. I was just trying to equate it to the [perceived] reality levels afforded to the HHM by the wonks on the "left".

Posted: 8/14/2007 7:35:13 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated graphs on NASA site

Still seem to show a general upward trend with the revised data.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid argument anyway. Even if global warming weren't happening, I see nothing wrong with being sensibly environmental.

NTM

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with being sensibly environmental but exactly the opposite.

Global Warming hysteria detracts focus form real environmental problems we can do something about and wastes tens of billions of dollars that could be spent on real environmental problems.

Global Warming fanatics are in fact enemies of responsible environmental policy… but then Global Warming is not about the environment but about control of economies.

ETA: I am shocked that NASA has once again been caught (and not by their own admission) of using faulty data and someone would just blow it off as it that information was not important… NASA has been caught one too many times fudging data to be considered a reliable objective source of information.

So you dont think we should spend any money on GW at all? No matter the cause, it would be to our advantage to understand GW the best we can. This invloves spending money.

You don't look at the big picture. Attempts to curb "global warming" place significant controls on the economy. Look at the Kyoto Treaty or the stupid ass million different blends of gasoline that refineries have to make. If we all used one blend, gasoline could be that much cheaper.

If global warming isn't caused by man or greatly influenced by man, then there's no reason to piss away a lot of extra money trying to stop it.

NOPE YOU CAN'T USE THE OLD METHOD ANYMORE! IT'S NOT PC AND ENCOURAGES GLOBAL WARMING! Here you can use this new method that costs 50-100% more though!

Posted: 8/14/2007 7:47:56 AM EDT

[#48]

The basic problem that I see with global warming scenarios is they fail to take into account the output of the sun.

We argue about how hot it is in the room, but no one is able to tell us what the thermostat (read furnace) is set at?

IF the sun fluctuates in output (and it does), then how much does it fluctuate and is there a periodicity to it (like there is with sunspots)?

The ACE spacecraft (and other missions) seek to quantify this kind of information.

As a matter of personal disclosure, I do practice conservation of resources as much as I can. I don't see it as "saving the planet". I see it as "saving my wallet".

Posted: 8/14/2007 7:51:47 AM EDT

[#49]

Fuck the global warming moonbats.

Fuck them in their fucking asses.

20 billion a year WASTED on idiotic bullshit.

TXL

Posted: 8/14/2007 10:54:37 AM EDT

[#50]

tag

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Y2K Bug In NASA Climate Data (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us