Posted by: reasic | 26th Sep, 2007

Feedback Mechanisms

This post is originally written Daniel Rhodes-Mumby at his blog, “This, Our Earth“. I was very impressed with Daniel’s understanding of this subject, and his ability to communicate that understanding, especially considering that he is only 15 years old. So, I figured I’d share this post on the subject of feedbacks.

Greenhouse gases offer a direct forcing of our climate, but perhaps more important are processes called feedback mechanisms, which can serve to multiply a climate shift manyfold or, alternatively, blunt it. A simple example of a feedback mechanism is the melting of ice. If we take a bit of ice covering a bit of ground and then start directing heat energy at it then it will melt eventually, of course.

Now, ice reflects most of the energy directed at it back towards the sources. However, the ground doesn’t; it tends to absorb more heat than it reflects. Therefore, once a bit of ice melts, the ground beneath it warms more. This will warm any nearby ice as well and thus eventually reveal some more ground to warm, which will help melt more ice, which will warm more ground, and so on and so forth. This begins a cycle whereby the effect of a little thing at the start - a small piece of ice melting - can be amplified to have potential effects far beyond its actual scale.

This particular example is an example of a positive feedback cycle. There are two types of feedback mechanisms: negative and positive. A positive feedback cycle reinforces a trend; as the amount of ice goes down in the example, the warming trend quickens as less ice is available to reflect energy. A negative feedback cycle blunts a trend; an example is the increase in vegetation caused by larger quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The vegetation takes advantage of the bountiful carbon dioxide and withdraws some from the atmosphere, helping keep carbon dioxide levels stable.

Feedback mechanisms vary in strength and time-scale. The melting of ice tends to happen slowly at first and then at an ever-increasing rate; the vegetation growth takes much longer and is variable in speed from then onwards. Sometimes a feedback mechanism of such magnitude and speed can occur that it can’t be blunted until it’s run its full course; an example would be the clathrate gun hypothesis, in which essentially solid methane at the bottom of the seabed is released by warming temperatures in such massive quantities that warming increases manyfold.

Feedback mechanisms are almost inevitably blunted at some point, though; when the ice runs out, when vegetation becomes overwhelmed with carbon dioxide or when the methane runs out. However, by the time they stop, the effects are usually all manifested, although some mechanisms can have effects which take years to come into play.

Feedback mechanisms can spawn new possibilities which wouldn’t even be considered otherwise; they can kick-start other feedbacks as well. And the new possibilities will be the topic of the next post.

Originally posted at This, Our Earth.

1 Comment

Categories:

  • climate
  • climate change
  • global warming
  • science

    • Tags: feedbacks

    Posted by: reasic | 14th Sep, 2007

    Water Vapor = Feedback

    This post is originally written Daniel Rhodes-Mumby at his blog, “This, Our Earth“. I was very impressed with Daniel’s understanding of this subject, and his ability to communicate that understanding, especially considering that he is only 15 years old. So, I figured I’d share this post on the subject of feedbacks.
    Categories:

    Greenhouse gases offer a direct forcing of our climate, but perhaps more important are processes called feedback mechanisms, which can serve to multiply a climate shift manyfold or, alternatively, blunt it. A simple example of a feedback mechanism is the melting of ice. If we take a bit of ice covering a bit of ground and then start directing heat energy at it then it will melt eventually, of course.

    Now, ice reflects most of the energy directed at it back towards the sources. However, the ground doesn’t; it tends to absorb more heat than it reflects. Therefore, once a bit of ice melts, the ground beneath it warms more. This will warm any nearby ice as well and thus eventually reveal some more ground to warm, which will help melt more ice, which will warm more ground, and so on and so forth. This begins a cycle whereby the effect of a little thing at the start - a small piece of ice melting - can be amplified to have potential effects far beyond its

     

    I agree that you’re confused as to the terms. the “initial force”, in the case of water vapor as a feedback, is global temperature. Temperature rises, causing an increase in water vapor concentration. The feedback occurs when that same increase causes an increase in temps, which causes an increase in H2O. Excluding other components, for simplicity, this process would continue in increasingly smaller increments until equilibrium is reached. That is a positive feedback.

    How is that different from CO2? Well, to start, we are emitting CO2. The increase in CO2 concentrations over the last century or so is due almost entirely to human activity. So, the initial increase in CO2 is caused by us. Then, that increase causes an increase in global temps. Period. No feedback.

    Granted, there are other forcings and feedbacks, but I’m just comparing the two in order to drive home the difference, so that you can more clearly see how water vapor is, without question, a feedback. Now, let’s put the two together, assuming that we only have water vapor and CO2 for the moment. Humans increase CO2, , , which causes an increase in temperatures, which causes an increase in water vapor, which increases temperatures, which increases water vapor, etc. Now, let’s add aerosols to the mix. Humans increase aerosols, which lowers temperature, which lowers water vapor, which lowers temperature, etc.

    So, at no point does water vapor ever cause an increase or a decrease in global temps. It only reacts to changes in temperature. This is why it is not included as a forcing in IPCC literature.

    73 Comments

    Categories:

    • climate change

      • Posted by: reasic | 13th Sep, 2007

      Welcome to Reasic, Phil.

      A newcomer to this blog has responded to an old post of mine with some misconceptions about climate change. I originally posted this response as a comment, but after giving it some thought, I figured I should post it. Seeing as it’s my blog, I can do that. :P Phil, this one’s for you.

      Forget the 800 year lag. What you & a number of your correspondents seem to be ignoring is CO2�s impact on earth�s greenhouse effect. It is well known that CO2 accounts for very slightly less than 2% of earth�s greenhouse effect and that 98% of the effect is H2O (gas).

      No one is �forgetting� the role of CO2 versus other gases in the overall greenhouse effect. It is definitely understood that water vapor plays a much larger role in the greenhouse effect than CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, this proves nothing. In fact, it is a red herring, commonly used by skeptics in an effort to confuse the public about climate change. You see, the overall greenhouse effect has nothing to do with climate change, which is the concern here, correct? After all, the IPCC stands for �Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change�. So, in this context, we should be worried about what, specifically, drives climate change, including what causes a change in the greenhouse effect. This then leads us to the conclusion that excludes water vapor as an option because it is a feedback, not a forcing:

      While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days) � Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time.

      [�]When surface temperatures change (whether from CO2 or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity.

      So, water vapor does not stay in the atmosphere long enough to initiate a change in temperature. Rather, it reacts to changes in temperature, amplifying the effects of other climate forcings.

      For the statisticians out there, just try to show a validly statistical correlation between CO2 & annual global temperatures from 1940 to 2000, or for that matter, the whole 20th century.

      This argument has also appeared elsewhere in the blogosphere. It is usually seen, though, in the form of a graph, showing 20th century warming, including the cooling period in the 40�s and 50�s, caused by an increase in aerosols, superimposed on a graph of CO2 concentrations, which have increased steadily over that time. What thie argument ignores is the complexity of our climate. It is understood that there are many other factors that influence our climate. CO2 is only one of these, but it makes the greatest contribution. So, since one must account for the effects of all other forcings and all feedbacks, in order to correlate cause and effect of temperature change, it should then be obvious that no direct correlation between CO2 and total global temperature change will be statistically valid. This is yet another red herring.

      No one that I know of is claiming that CO2 causes 100% of global warming. However, according to the IPCC�s radiative forcing components chart on page 4 of the SPM1, it plays a major role among other known climate forcings. I recommend you give it a look, and let me know what you think about it:

      IPCC WG1 SPM

      Thanks for your response, Phil. I hope this has been helpful.

      20 Comments

      Categories:

      • Environment
      • IPCC
      • climate
      • climate change
      • debate
      • global warming
      • global warming myths
      • science
      • skeptics

        • Posted by: reasic | 4th Sep, 2007

        Earth’s Internal Heat Causing Climate Change

        I’ve gone back and forth a couple of times over this internal heat issue in the comments, and finally decided to put together a post on it, so that it might be more thoroughly explained. The crux of my argument is that even the 0.075 W/m^2 figure is too high, because it is a constant, rather than a measure of change:

        …the Earth started out internally warmer than it is now, and will gradually cool for a very long time. I then deduce that the amount of energy reaching the Earth�s surface will also decline over that time. However, the cooling takes place over such a long period of time that, over the time periods we are currently concerned with, the heat generated from within the Earth could be considered constant. In that case, the change in temperature from inside the planet is basically zero, which explains why the IPCC does not mention it.

        When comparing apples to apples, we see that the contribution of the planet’s internal heat to a change in climate is effectively zero. However, this only explains why it doesn’t matter that the IPCC has not addressed internal heat as a potential source for climate change. The reason it hasn’t been mentioned is that the IPCC reports are not intended to debunk skeptics:

        The IPCC reports are a culmination of all of the relevant scientific research on the subject of climate change over the last 6 years from many different fields of study, not an attempt to refute misguided skeptical arguments.

        These two points combined should help explain why internal heat is not an issue.

        More at Celsias.

        61 Comments

        Categories:

        • Celsias
        • Environment
        • IPCC
        • climate
        • climate change
        • debate
        • global warming
        • global warming myths
        • science
        • skeptics

          • Posted by: reasic | 15th Aug, 2007

          Green Myth-Busting: Global Average Temperatures

          Myth: Global temperature data is inaccurate and/or too sparse to be able to establish a meaningful average temperature over the entire planet. Therefore, any claims of global warming are unfounded.

          Fact: NASA has collected and acquired massive amounts of temperature data from various sources, including land-based, meteorological stations, sea surface temperature measurements from ships, and measurements taken from satellites. This data encompasses the entire planet, and is run through a method that is explained on NASA’s website, which results in a statistically significant global average temperature.

          The first thing to note here is that there are not many who still make this argument, at least not among climate scientists. The IPCC, in its latest report, actually states that global warming is “unequivocal”. Even skeptical scientists, such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy, will admit that we are indeed warming. Their only argument is against the cause of the warming, which is where most skeptics’ arguments have shifted. This should be a clue that there is no argument against warming, however some continue to insist that the planet is not warming.

          It seems that the major impetus for the recent resurgence of this argument is a website, www.surfacestations.org, which attempts to question data collection equipment. This is actually a very nifty little trick. This site, launched in June of this year, has established a fairly large following. These devoted followers are commissioned to go out and take pictures of the US meteorological stations. Armed with these pictures, surfacestations.org scrutinizes them, looking for indications that they might be susceptible to a warm bias. This has filled many contrarians’ minds with the idea that the entire temperature data set is flawed, which is ultimately the point. Not surprisingly, there is no mention on the site of existing methods for removing biases from temperature measurements. First, the thermometers are now protected by Stevenson screens (emphasis added):

          A Stevenson screen or Instrument shelter is a meterological screen to shield instruments against precipitation and direct heat radiation from outside sources, while still allowing air to circulate freely around them. It forms part of a standard weather station. The screen creates, as near possible, a uniform environment in relation to the air outside. - Wikipedia

          Second, NASA’s GISTEMP compares urban stations to rural stations, in an attempt to further remove any potential biases:

          We modify the GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data in two stages to get to the station data on which all our tables, graphs, and maps are based: in stage 1 we try to combine at each location the time records of the various sources; in stage 2 we adjust the non-rural stations in such a way that their longterm trend of annual means is as close as possible to that of the mean of the neighboring rural stations. Non-rural stations that cannot be adjusted are dropped. - NASA GISS

          Another common argument is that we simply don’t have enough temperature data to be able to compute a global average temperature. This argument usually comes with a map of the world, showing the locations of existing surface meteorological stations. Obviously, on such a map, there are very large areas that are not covered (oceans, deserts, mountain ranges, etc.). However, NASA states that they have sufficient data, dating as far back as 1880:

          The NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) provides a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established…We limit our analysis to the period since 1880 because of the poor spatial coverage of stations prior to that time and the reduced possibility of checking records against those of nearby neighbors. - NASA GISS

          A major problem for both of these arguments is that they only focus on land-based temperature readings. This is because there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of global warming outside of those temperature measurements, which are completely ignored by these objections. In order to truly call global warming into question, one would also have to prove satellite data, borehole analysis, glacial melt, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy data, and rising ocean temperature to be flawed.

          UPDATE: A new instance of this questioning of temperature data occurred when NASA made some small corrections to data at the turn of the millenium, thanks to a tip from Stephen McIntyre from Climate Audit. This was a good tip, and NASA’s data is now more accurate for it, but some skeptics have tried to misrepresent it as proof that NASA’s temperature data is faulty. Recently, Fox News provided an excellent example of this misrepresentation:

          On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced “to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record” and that NASA “now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921.” But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA’s revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings. - Media Matters

          As the fine folks at Media Matters pointed out, while the change did result in 1934 topping 1998 as the hottest year in the US, it had literally no effect on global temperature trends, and actually even a very miniscule effect on US trends. Looking at the global temperature graph below, one can see that the global warming trend is still very much intact:

          Cross posted at Green Options.

          59 Comments

          Categories:

          • Environment
          • climate
          • climate change
          • conspiracy theories
          • global warming
          • global warming myths
          • news
          • science
          • skeptics

            • Posted by: reasic | 8th Aug, 2007

            Green Myth-Busting: Occam’s Razor

            William of OckhamMyth: According to Occam’s razor, the theory that our current climate change is part of a natural cycle is correct.

            Fact: Occam’s razor does not apply for two reasons: the theory of natural variation is no simpler than that of anthropogenic global warming, and most importantly, natural variation is not a valid theory, which is a prerequisite for the use of Occam’s razor.

            Many times, when engaged in a debate with a global warming skeptic, I will encounter an invocation of Occam’s Razor. According to this maxim, all other things being equal, the simpler of two competing theories is most likely the correct one:

            Occam’s razor (sometimes spelled Ockham’s razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory…This is often paraphrased as “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.” In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. - Wikipedia

            When global warming skeptics invoke Occam’s Razor, they generally mean that the idea that climate change is caused primarily, if not solely, by natural factors is much simpler than the idea that human activity has caused such changes. Therefore, according to Occam’s Razor, the natural variations idea is the correct theory. As I stated above, this is an incorrect use of the maxim.

            First, the natural variation theory is actually no simpler than anthropogenic global warming. The idea that current climate change is a natural phenomenon seems to be simpler to many skeptics because they generally don’t exercise the same amount of skepticism towards theories that agree with their ideologies, which results in a lack of any true examination of this idea. The argument I hear most often in favor of this idea is that our climate has always changed in the past, and humans weren’t around back then to influence it, so it must follow that our current climate is also due to natural factors. However, that is not a valid argument. Just because something caused changes in the past, it doesn�t mean that when a new variable is added, the new variability is not caused primarily by the new variable. So, in order to prove that climate change is indeed caused by natural factors, one must actually specify which natural factors are causing the change, and provide a statistically valid, quantified comparison of both natural and man-made causes, which shows that the natural factors outweigh human greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, if one put the necessary effort into proving the natural variation theory, it would no longer be considered any simpler than anthropogenic global warming.

            Second, Occam’s razor requires that “all things [be] equal”. In other words, the prerequisite for the maxim is that both competing theories be equally verifiable. This is a major problem for skeptics who would like to use it because there is no valid theory which explains our current warming as being due to natural causes. Many of the largest changes in our planet’s temperature in the past were due to changes in the earth’s orbit and tilt, called Milankovitch cycles. This is does not explain our current warming because we are already in an interglacial period (between ice ages). Some believe the Sun is causing our warming, but the Sun’s energy output stays relatively constant. In fact, recent research has suggested that the Sun’s activity has declined in recent decades. Others blame cloud formation, or the lack thereof, due to cosmic ray flux, but this theory also remains unproven with many problems of its own. Namely, cosmic ray intensity has remained stagnant in the recent past. Conversely, anthropogenic global warming is verifiable. Nearly all research points to a warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which is what has given the IPCC the confidence to claim that it is “very likely” that global warming is due to human activity.

            This argument is yet another attempt to obfuscate the issue, rather than an honest attempt at finding the truth.

            Cross posted at Green Options.

            43 Comments

            Categories:

            • climate
            • climate change
            • global warming
            • global warming myths
            • science
            • skeptics

            Posted by: reasic | 3rd Aug, 2007

            Temperature Data Manipulation?

            Coffee PotI know it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything, and it’s been because of a very hectic schedule both at work and at home. I hope to be freed up soon.

            This post is a response to a post by our friend, the Grit, at his new global warming blog. The Grit is continually struggling with the existing global temperature record, and whether it is sufficient to make determinations as to whether we are currently experiencing global warming. In his post, he questions the method used by scientists to determine the daily average temperature:

            The temperature record, on which the Cult of Climate Change bases their case is built on data that only records the daily high and low temperature. I just now realized that, while these numbers are fun to follow, they really don�t reflect in any meaningful way the Global Average Temperature, any more that the high and low temperature of the leftover brew in my coffee pot reflects its daily average.

            Read More…

            129 Comments

            Categories:

            • Environment
            • climate
            • climate change
            • global warming
            • global warming myths
            • science
            • skeptics

            Posted by: reasic | 25th Jul, 2007

            Green Myth-Busting: Cosmic Ray Flux

            Myth: Our current global warming is due primarily to a decrease in cosmic ray intensity.

            Fact: The fact is that this theory is extremely new, and has only recently been considered possible. There are still many questions left to be answered and more work to be done on quantifying its effect before such a statement could have any validity. Before we get into the details of why this is, I�d like to explain the theory itself a little better.

            Basically, this theory, researched by a scientist named Henrick Svensmark, claims that the Sun indirectly affects our climate. The first thing to understand is that clouds generally have a cooling effect on the planet, through an effect called albedo: they reflect sunlight back into space. Next, we have cosmic rays, which are “energetic particles originating from space that impinge on Earth�s atmosphere”. Cosmic rays primarily consist of protons, and they originate from outside our solar system. The Sun also emits rays, called solar cosmic rays, which have much lower energy than cosmic rays. When there is an increase in solar activity, the increased solar cosmic ray intensity causes a decrease in the other cosmic rays, called the Forbush decrease.

            According to the cosmic ray flux theory, cosmic rays, upon entering our atmosphere, produce small particles called aerosols, which aid in cloud formation. So, more cosmic rays means more clouds and a greater cooling effect. However, this theory�s proponents claim that we are currently in a period of increased solar activity, which is causing less cosmic rays to enter our atmosphere. This means less clouds and therefore, a warming effect.

            Read More…

            12 Comments

            Categories:

            • Environment
            • climate
            • cosmic ray flux
            • global warming
            • global warming myths
            • science
            • skeptics

            Posted by: reasic | 24th Jul, 2007

            Hurricanes in the Mediterranean

            HurricaneA new study has found that as global warming continues, the Mediterranean Sea could become warm enough that it could support the formation of hurricanes:

            Global warming could trigger hurricanes, or tropical cyclones, over the Mediterranean sea, threatening one of the world�s most densely populated coastal regions, according to European scientists. Hurricanes currently form out in the tropical Atlantic and rarely reach Europe, but a new study shows a 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) rise in average temperatures could set them off in the enclosed Mediterranean in future. �This is the first study to detect this possibility,� lead researcher Miguel Angel Gaertner of the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Toledo, Spain, told Reuters on Monday.

            More at Celsias.

            8 Comments

            Categories:

            • Celsias
            • Environment
            • climate
            • climate change
            • global warming
            • news
            • science

            Posted by: reasic | 19th Jul, 2007

            Green Myth-Busting: 70’s Ice Age Predictions

            Myth: These same climate scientists predicted a coming ice age in the 70’s. They were wrong then, so why should we trust them now?

            Fact: No, they didn’t. The situation in the 70’s was very different from our current situation. There was no scientific consensus on climate change. There was no international body of scientists looking into the matter, no global effort to deal with climate change, and no daily news articles on the subject. There were maybe a couple of magazine articles, a book, and some sporadic newspaper articles.

            Today, by contrast, we have the IPCC, an organization of the world’s top climate scientists and its four reports, the latest of which claims with 90% certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for our current warming. We also have other scientific bodies that agree with this assessment, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Should one ask for a scientific paper from that time period that makes such a claim, one would certainly be left empty-handed. The most common example used is an article that was published in Newsweek in 1975, titled “The Cooling World“, which provides an excellent example of the sensationalist reporting that existed within some media reports.

            The situation was also different because the state of climate science was such that there was not enough research to be able to make these supposed predictions with any certainty. A 1975 National Academy of Sciences report stated as much, saying “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”. Climate science was in its infancy. There wasn’t yet enough data or research available on which to base such a prediction, and scientists were well aware of that fact. Scientists’ current statements on the future of our climate are based on decades of research and massive amounts of data that has been collected over that time.

            Also, as the climate scientists at RealClimate have pointed out, we know that climate scientists could not have made such predictions based on the scientific information that was available at the time:

            Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived. - RealClimate

            This argument, like many other skeptical arguments, is simply an ad hominem attack. Rather than addressing the merits of the science behind anthropogenic global warming, it attempts to discredit climate scientists in general based on arguments and statements they never made. Such arguments hold about as much merit as recent attacks against Al Gore and claims that previous high levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere were caused by dinosaur farts. If there were any valid points to be made by skeptics, this would not be one of them.

            Cross posted at Green Options.

            58 Comments

            Categories:

            • Environment
            • IPCC
            • climate
            • climate change
            • global warming
            • global warming myths
            • science
            • skeptics

            Older Posts »

            Categories

            • Al Gore
            • An Inconvenient Truth
            • blogging
            • Blogroll
            • budget
            • carbon offsets
            • Celsias
            • CIA
            • climate
            • climate change
              • Assessment Report
              • global warming
              • global warming myths
              • IPCC
              • Kyoto Protocol
              • skeptics
            • Climate Science
            • conspiracy theories
            • cosmic ray flux
            • Counter
            • debate
            • economics
            • elections
            • energy industry
            • Environment
              • alternative fuels
            • exxon
            • foreign policy
            • Fox News
            • Friends
            • General
            • government
            • green tea
            • Greenland
            • >gun control
            • humor
            • investigations
            • Iran
              • Ahmadinejad
            • iraq
            • Iraq War
              • Office of Special Plans
              • pre-war intelligence
            • leisure
            • Life
            • mainstream media
            • media bias
            • middle east
            • Moderate
            • Moonbats
            • news
            • oil industry
            • partisanship
            • Political
            • politics
            • Republicans
            • science
            • Site Counter
            • Site Meter
            • solar irradiance
            • talk radio
            • Uncategorized
            • Virginia Tech
            • war
            • White House
              • Bush
              • Dick Cheney
            • Wingnuts
            • wordpress