Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #532 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2022-12-10 (December 10, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman

Number of the Week: +0.13 C/decade

THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Scope: The following items will be discussed. The SEPP board unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Frederick Seitz Awards Committee headed by Will Happer and gave the 2022 award for integrity in science to Professor of Mathematics Christopher Essex. The formal presentation will be at the 15th International Conference on Climate Change organized by The Heartland Institute from February 23 to February 25 in Orlando Florida. SEPP will be a co-sponsor of the event.

Francis Menton sought an official US policy on electricity storage is needed if the US is to go to Net Zero carbon dioxide emissions. He found a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that has many words and little substance.

Meteorologist Cliff Mass provides a thoughtful answer to the question: How can we predict the climate 50 years from now if we can’t forecast the weather next week? The approach he states, boundary values, is embodied in the work of Professor van Wijngaarden and Happer on the influence of the major greenhouse gases on earth’s temperature. The approach was used by the Right Climate Stuff Team and was employed in designing the Apollo Lunar Lander which made six lunar landings with humans from 1969 to 1972 – over 50 years ago.

A frequent writer in Judith Curry’s Climate Etc., Frank Bosse discusses a recent post by Gavin Schmidt of NASA-GISS about the observed Transient Climate Response (TCR) for 1979- 2022 (without long term feedbacks or adjustments). Schmidt’s post uses the latest global climate models of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021) and NASA-GISS surface temperature data. The modeling indicates a modest increase in temperatures from a doubling of carbon dioxide, not a drastic climate emergency.

AMO physicist Howard Hayden cautioned TWTW that IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007) has a graph showing an atmospheric window, where heat energy from the earth’s surface (infrared energy) escapes directly to space without being impeded by greenhouse gases. This is discussed further in light of the work by van Wijngaarden and Happer.

Economist Ross McKitirick wrote that the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer produced a report that debunks the claims of a climate emergency or crisis. Is the bloom on the fad of Net Zero wilting when subject to detailed analysis?

********************

An Independent Mind: Recently retired from the University of Western Ontario, also called Western University, a Canadian public research university, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Physics Christopher Essex has demonstrated the independent thinking that is required for science to advance — and which makes bureaucrats cringe. He has long criticized climate models for their unrealistic treatment of the atmosphere: the models cannot compute that the atmosphere cools as well as they compute it warms. As meteorologist Joe Bastardi states, the models can’t see cooling. Essex begins a post on Donna Laframboise’s website: [boldface added]

“It is well known that daytime winter temperatures on Earth can fall well below -4°F (-20℃) in some places, even in midlatitudes, despite warming worries. Sometimes the surface can even drop below -40°F (-40℃), which is comparable to the surface of Mars. What is not so well known is that such cold winter days are colder than they would be with no atmosphere at all!

“How can that be if the atmosphere is like a blanket, according to the standard greenhouse analogy? If the greenhouse analogy fails, what is climate?

“Climate computer models in the 1960s could not account for this non-greenhouse-like picture. However modern computer models are better than those old models, but the climate implications of an atmosphere that cools as well as warms has not been embraced. Will computer models be able to predict climate after it is? The meteorological program for climate has been underway for more than 40 years. How did it do?

“Feynman, Experiment and Climate Models

‘Model’ is used in a peculiar manner in the climate field. In other fields, models are usually formulated so that they can be found false in the face of evidence. From fundamental physics (the Standard Model) to star formation, a model is meant to be put to the test, no matter how meritorious.

“Climate models do not have this character. No observation from Nature can cause them to be replaced by some new form of model. Instead, climate models are seen by some as the implementation of perfect established classical physics expressed on oracular computers, and as such must be regarded as fully understood and beyond falsification. In terms of normal science, this is fantasy.

“Modern critics of climate models cite a famous remark of the physicist Richard Feynman: ‘It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.’ Those critics imagine models as theory, and observations as experiment. No knowledgeable model builder believes that climate models capture all features of the system well. As such they disagree with observations. However, they do not violate Feynman’s edict because climate models are no theory for climate, and observations of an uncontrolled system are no experiment. Feynman was speaking in the context of controlled physical experiments, which cannot be done for climate.

If a climate model disagrees with data, in principle the sub-grid-scale (more below) of ad hoc climate models can be adjusted to make it agree. Fortunately, good model builders resist the temptation to overdo such tuning. However, they may do things inadvertently like tune models to be more like each other than like the atmosphere and oceans.

“Extreme Computing in Search of Climate

“Extreme conditions can compromise any computer calculation, despite popular faith otherwise. Sharp transitions on boundaries, extreme gradients, and extremes in density are examples. There are also extremes that are often overlooked, e.g., an extreme of time. Direct computation of the meteorological physics for long timescales is an extreme in time. Integrations of classical physics on computers for climatological timescales are unique and unprecedented. Like other forms of extreme computation, there are consequences.”

“Numerical analysis on computers contends with the finite representation (i.e., a finite number of numbers) of all computers. There are three types of errors that result,

  1. Round off error: the computer must chop off (truncate) numbers because of space limitations.
  2. Truncation error: To put an equation onto a computer you must usually chop off (truncate) parts of the physical equations you aim to compute.
  3. Symmetry Error: How you chop up the equations affects the symmetry (Lie symmetry) of the equations you plan to integrate. This is realized in the violation of conservation laws, which are uniquely important for extreme climate timescales.”

The post gives a good example of the independent thinking that Essex contributes to understanding science. It was the limiting the criticisms of the models to experiment that compelled TWTW to search further into the writings of Feynman and find that Feynman considered nature to be the ultimate judge of physical sciences, based on observations as well as experiments. Modelers claiming that experiments count, but not observations, is an excuse for failure to properly test their models against nature. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy and the following for information on the Heartland Conference: https://www.heartland.org/events/events/iccc-15

********************

No Problem Here: Last week’s TWTW discussed a report by Francis Menton that no government promoting “Net Zero” carbon dioxide emissions has produced a demonstration project showing how it can be achieved and what the costs would be. Following up on it, Menton searched for an official US government report on the Energy Storage Problem. He writes: [boldface added]

“So, I thought to look around for the closest thing I could find to the Official Party Line on how the U.S. is supposedly going to get to Net Zero emissions from the electricity sector by some early date. The most authoritative thing I have found is a big Report out in August 2022 from something called the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, titled ‘Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.’ An accompanying press release with a date of August 30 has the headline ‘NREL Study Identifies the Opportunities and Challenges of Achieving the U.S. Transformational Goal of 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.’

“What is NREL? The Report identifies it as a private lab ‘operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract. In other words, it’s an explicit advocacy group for ‘renewable’ energy that gets infinite oodles of taxpayer money to put out advocacy pieces making it seem like the organization’s preferred schemes will work.

“Make no mistake, this Report is a big piece of work. The Report identifies some 5 ‘lead authors,’ 6 ‘contributing authors,’ and 56 editors, contributors, commenters, and others. Undoubtedly millions of your taxpayer dollars were spent producing the Report and the underlying models … The end product is an excellent illustration of why central planning does not work and can never work.

“So now that our President has supposedly committed the country to this ‘100% clean electricity’ thing by 2035, surely these geniuses are going to tell us exactly how that is going to be done and how much it will cost. Good luck finding that in here. From the press release:

The study . . . is an initial exploration of the transition to a 100% clean electricity power system by 2035—and helps to advance understanding of both the opportunities and challenges of achieving the ambitious goal. Overall, NREL finds multiple pathways to 100% clean electricity by 2035 that would produce significant benefits, but the exact technology mix and costs will be determined by research and development (R&D), manufacturing, and infrastructure investment decisions over the next decade.

“It’s an ‘initial exploration.’ With the country already supposedly committed to this multi-trillion-dollar project on which all of our lives depend, they’re just starting to think about how to do it. ‘The exact technology mix and costs’ — in other words, everything important — ‘will be determined by research and development’ — in other words, remain to be invented. But don’t worry, that will all be done over the next ten years, with plenty of time then remaining to get everything deployed at scale in the three years from then to 2035.

After further discussion, Menton writes:

“In other words, they have no clue. They’re wildly tossing out ideas of things that have never been tried or demonstrated, let alone costed — and supposedly we’re going to have our whole energy system transitioned to this in 13 years. No surprise that the best idea they have is hydrogen — which, as I describe thoroughly in my report, is a terrible idea. And all that infrastructure they talk about for the hydrogen — none of that currently exists, or is under construction, or is even in a planning stage.”

Menton concludes:

“The Report has a big section on cost/benefit analysis, where it is confidently concluded that the benefits far outweigh the costs under any of many scenarios. This is without the storage problem being solved or a solution demonstrated, or costs remotely known.

“If you have the time and inclination, you can find the full Report at the link above.[not included here] I would not really recommend wasting your valuable time on this, but readers who want to add further critiques have the opportunity to do so.

“Your taxpayer dollars at work.”

TWTW did some further examination into NREL, the links given in the press releases, and found:

“NREL is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of five executives each from MRIGlobal and Battelle, [not-for-profit consulting groups] and one each from the following five universities: the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, Colorado School of Mines, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University.”

Government responsibility? See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

********************

Identifying the Problem: In answering the question “How can we predict the climate 50 years from now if we can’t forecast the weather next week?” Meteorologist Cliff Mass writes that weather forecasts and climate prediction are different problems. He writes:

“Weather forecasting: an initial value problem

“Weather prediction, an initial-value problem, starts with a comprehensive, 3-D description of the atmosphere called the initialization. Then large supercomputers are used to solve the equations describing atmospheric physics to forecast the exact state of the atmosphere in the future at specific times.

“Forecast accuracy declines with time and by roughly two weeks nearly all predictability is lost, something described theoretically by Professor Edward Lorenz of MIT. [Chaos theory]

“Forecast skill drops rapidly between 5 and 10 days.”

“Climate forecasting: a boundary value problem

“Forecast skill for specific weather features is lost after roughly 2 weeks because the atmosphere essentially loses memory of the initial observed state of the atmosphere.

“In climate forecasts for extended periods of time, the key constraint is not the initial conditions, but the amount of radiation coming into and out of the atmosphere. If we know how much radiation is coming into and out of the top of the atmosphere, the climate models can produce a realistic average climate for those conditions.

“The amount of radiation emitted and absorbed by the atmosphere is greatly controlled by the composition of the atmosphere which we have to assume (e.g., how much CO2, methane, and particles in the atmosphere).

“Such projections are only as good as our estimate of the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 50 or 100 years. Big uncertainty! But we do the best we can.”

Apparently, Mass is unaware of the work of van Wijngaarden and Happer. Using the HITRAN database they have calculated the temperature effects of a doubling of CO2 with clear skies (cloudless). Since clouds reflect sunlight into space, and, in general, have cooling effect; the clear skies calculations are an upper bound for global warming with a doubling of CO2. Of course, the other issue is that the global climate models do not even approximate the atmosphere. See link under Defending the Orthodoxy.

********************

Backing Down? A post by Frank Bosse on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. links to a February 2, 2022, post by Gavin Schmidt on the IPCC CMIP6 models (the latest version). (Schmidt previously wrote that CO2 was the control knob of the earth’s temperatures.) Again, these models use surface temperature to “capture” the greenhouse effect and ignore atmospheric temperature trends, where the greenhouse effect occurs. Consequently, the data capture human alteration of the Earth’s surface that cause warming such as urbanization and draining wetlands.

The concept used is Transient Climate Response (TCR). According to the IPCC,

In particular, the global mean temperature change which occurs at the time of CO2 doubling for the specific case of a 1%/yr. increase of CO2 is termed the transient climate response (TCR) of the system. This temperature change, indicated in Figure 9.1, [not shown here] integrates all processes operating in the system, including the strength of the feedbacks and the rate of heat storage in the ocean, to give a straightforward measure of model response to a change in forcing.

Further:

“Equilibrium climate sensitivity

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (IPCC 1990, 1996) is defined as the change in global mean temperature, T2x, that results when the climate system, or a climate model, attains a new equilibrium with the forcing change F2x resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

In short, according to the IPCC, TCR is temperature change when the amount of CO2 doubles, not temperature change (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) when equilibrium is achieved. Bosse concludes his presentation with:

Considering this fact, the observations point to a TCR of 1.6/1.21= 1.3 K/doubling of CO2 as the best estimate. The 17 to 83 % likely range from the regression is 1.22 to 1.38.

These TCR values are very similar to the estimate of Lewis/Curry (2018).

The TCR of 1.3, confirmed by the latest data, gives a warming in 2100 of 1.75 vs. pre-industrial times, when considering the 4.5 W/m² forcing scenario. We would remain within the ‘2°C goal’ even with a forcing of 5W/m² to 2100, we would produce 1.9 K of warming.

All available serious literature excludes a catastrophic outcome of the global warming, if we remain within the 2K limit. It seems very likely that we will do so. No doom and no need for glue on streets and paintings. Somebody should inform the scared people who are doing such strange things in the name of ‘The Science’.

Science tells it otherwise, giving much hope that mankind will avoid the ‘catastrophic climate endgame’.

It is useful to remember Le Chatelier’s Principle: “A change in one of the variables that describe a system at equilibrium produces a shift in the position of the equilibrium that counteracts the effect of this change.” Though it initially applied to chemical solutions, it has been shown to apply to the physical world in general. Any exception, such as positive warming impacts from increasing water vapor from tropospheric warming need to be demonstrated, such as the “tropical hot spot”) None have.

See link under Questioning the Orthodoxy and https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm

********************

Atmospheric Window: AMO physicist Howard Hayden cautioned TWTW that a drawing in IPCC (AR4, 2007) showed an atmospheric window with about 40 watts per square meter passing through without any blocking from greenhouse gases. That’s about one-tenth of the infrared radiation (IR) emitted by the surface and about one-sixth of the IR that goes to space.

One of the disturbing characteristics of the drawing is that it gives no information of how the influence of greenhouse gases may change with altitude. For example, in “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases” Figure 1, we see that the concentration of water vapor diminishes rapidly from the surface to the tropopause, where most water vapor freezes out. The decline is similar to the lapse rate. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, but its influence declines significantly with altitude. This is not shown on the IPCC drawing. See https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2020/12/WThermal-Radiationf.pdf?x45936

********************

Costs of Action: In discussing “Global greenhouse gas emissions and Canadian GDP” by the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), Ross McKitrick writes:

“One of the annoying bits of jargon that goes around climate policy circles is the phrase ‘the cost of inaction.’ As in, ‘we have to do something, doing nothing is not an option, the cost of inaction is too large.’ The cost of inaction is the foregone benefit of the action, and according to the PBO, it’s not large at all. In fact, it’s tiny.”

“And we have to ask: what if the policies cost more than 0.8 per cent of GDP? [The PBO’s estimated cost of no action on greenhouse gases]. We can be absolutely certain that they will.”

So doing something may be far more costly to society than doing nothing. This was true with World War I. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

********************

Number of the Week: +0.13 C/decade: In reporting the global temperatures trends for November 2022, Roy Spencer writes:

“The linear warming trend since January 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”

The changes are erratic and not linear. They include the changing greenhouse effect, volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere at the beginning of the record, and increased atmospheric water vapor from submerged volcanoes that create ocean hot spots, unrelated to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). These are causing a warming of the Arctic. So, the trend due to increasing human-caused greenhouse gases is less than what the numbers indicate. See links under Measurement Issues – Atmosphere.

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019

http://store.heartland.org/shop/ccr-ii-fossil-fuels/

Download with no charge:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Climate-Change-Reconsidered-II-Fossil-Fuels-FULL-Volume-with-covers.pdf

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Download with no charge:

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008

http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf

Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Can Computer Models Predict Climate?

Guest post by Christopher Essex, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Physics, University of Western Ontario, Big Picture News, Apr 13, 2022

Looking For The Official Party Line On Energy Storage

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Dec 8, 2022

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-12-8-looking-for-the-official-party-line-on-energy-storage

Link to: “Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.”

By Denholm, Paul, et al., NREL, August 2022

Press Release: NREL Study Identifies the Opportunities and Challenges of Achieving the U.S. Transformational Goal of 100% Clean Electricity by 2035

By Staff, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Aug 30, 2022

https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/nrel-study-identifies-opportunities-and-challenges-achieving-us-transformational-goal

Opinion: The Parliamentary Budget Officer just debunked climate alarmism

This is the opposite of an ’emergency’ or ‘crisis’

By Ross McKitrick, Financial Post (Canada), Dec 7, 2022

https://financialpost.com/opinion/parliamentary-budget-officer-debunk-climate-alarmism

Link to report: Global greenhouse gas emissions and Canadian GDP

By Philip Bagnoli, et al, The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), Nov 8, 2022

https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/bbc2846795c541eddc656e484a15e7ecd91bd0aff45196f231523d8c5c9aafe4

World’s Northern Hemisphere Tropical Storm Accumulated Cyclone Energy Plunges 33% in 2022

By Larry Hamlin, WUWT, Dec 6, 2022

RPC8.5: still a scam

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 7, 2022

‘Reasonable’ Concessions To Climate Hysteria Lack Reason

By Gregory Wrightstone, Daily Caller, Dec 3, 2022 [H/t ICECAP]

https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/03/opinion-reasonable-concessions-to-climate-hysteria-lack-reason-gregory-wrightstone/

“Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University, has coauthored a paper that shows that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is limited to a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum and cannot cause dangerous heating of the planet.

“’Carbon dioxide is completely natural,’ he says. ‘Plants need it to grow. We all breathe out about two pounds of it every day. When people say that we need to remove carbon dioxide from the air, I can’t imagine what they are thinking because today there is not enough carbon dioxide compared to what plants would prefer. We are living in a time of a carbon dioxide famine in the context of geological history. We need more of it not less.’”

Gross zero

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 7, 2022

Link to Report: Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions

By Catherine McKenna, chair, et al. United Nations’ High‑Level Expert Group on the Net Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities,

From the report: “We are at a critical moment for humanity. The window to limit dangerous global warming and ensure a sustainable future is quickly closing. This is the stark but unequivocal finding of recent climate change reports.”

[SEPP Comment: Does the UN understand what scientific integrity is?]

Defending the Orthodoxy

How can we predict the climate 50 years from now if we can’t forecast the weather next week?

By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Dec 5, 2022

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2022/12/how-can-we-predict-climate-50-years.html

Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science

It’s not April 1st but…

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 7, 2022

[SEPP Comment: Exposing a foolish effort to criticize the work of David Young, presented in last week’s TWTW.]

International Energy Agency: Renewables will surpass coal by 2025

By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Dec 6, 2022

Link to report: Renewables 2022: Analysis and forecast to 2027

By Staff, International Energy Agency, December 2022

From the press release: “The global energy crisis has triggered unprecedented momentum behind renewables, with the world set to add as much renewable power in the next 5 years as it did in the past 20.”

“The invasion of Ukraine is set to be a particular accelerant for the transition in Europe. The capacity added in European nations from 2022 to 2027 will be double that of the expansion in the previous five years, according to the IEA.”

[SEPP Comment: Another unrealistic report by the IEA that is built on promises not facts. Some European countries are discovering how fragile electrical systems become with increasing unreliable renewables. No utility scale demonstration of the promise of hydrogen.]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Transient Climate Response from observations 1979-2022

By Frank Bosse, Climate Etc. Dec 7, 2022

Four Weeks Left For Fossil Fuels

By Tony Heller, His Blog, Dec 5, 2022

https://realclimatescience.com/2022/12/four-weeks-left-for-fossil-fuels/ [Video]

[SEPP Comment: In 1901, Knut Angstrom demonstrated that CO2 has little effect beyond a minimum concentration and that the calculations of Svante Arrhenius were wrong, Arrhenius subsequently withdrew his calculations. Yet the EPA uses the original Arrhenius calculations!]

Now that I’m in power laws matter

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 7, 2022

“True. From a man who had all the answers to a man who has no answers and is still determined to implement them.

“Our view is somewhat less insider. We say people didn’t buy the message 20 years ago and they still don’t because they look out the window and see winter in November.”

The Climate Alarmists Are Deeply Disturbed People

I & I Editorial Board, Dec 9, 2022

“We’re not saying the climate alarmists are insane. But we feel it is our duty to point out that they do say the same things over and over and expect that this time they’ll get it right.”

Energy and Environmental Review: December 5, 2022

By John Droz, Jr., Master Resource, Dec 5, 2022

After Paris!

How Much Will Loss & Damage Cost?–Foreign Office Have No Idea

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 8, 2022

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button