Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Warmest April on record

  1. #1 Warmest April on record 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079


    Of course, since this is from the NOAA, it is probably not reliable.

    The combined April global land and ocean average surface temperature was the warmest on record at 58.1°F (14.5°C), which is 1.37°F (0.76°C) above the 20th century average of 56.7°F (13.7°C).
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Holy sh*t!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Holy sh*t!
    There's this too.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/1...rature-record/

    Got to hurry - Sister Sarah's speaking at DU. Want a teeshirt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Darn, I missed her speech. Did she talk about temperature anomalies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    With El Nino ended now in May and ENSO negative, temperature anomalies historically follow a month or two later, we should start to see a return to cooling trends. It is already showing in surface sea temperatures. Of course as you pointed out the NOAA anomalies for land readings are still biased on the warm side, and that will partially offset the cooling trend. I would look for these record warm months to be ending. to quote Lynx-Fox, weather is not climate.

    Edit: here is a graphic:



    And ENSO:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Warmest April on record 
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Of course, since this is from the NOAA, it is probably not reliable.
    What do you mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Warmest April on record 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Of course, since this is from the NOAA, it is probably not reliable.
    What do you mean?
    Irony, dude.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Those damned lying thermometers and their socialist agendas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Those damned lying thermometers and their socialist agendas.
    Their solarist agenda, you mean. :wink:

    Bunbury, I'd surmise that she did in fact talk about temperature anomalies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    With El Nino ended now in May and ENSO negative, temperature anomalies historically follow a month or two later, we should start to see a return to cooling trends.
    Thank the heavens for that, particularly since the solar minimum is ending.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Warmest April on record 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Of course, since this is from the NOAA, it is probably not reliable.
    What do you mean?
    Here is a discussion of one aspect of the NOAA/GISS temperature set.

    Visualizing Arctic Coverage

    This graphic shows how the GISS result set continues to deviate from the other common global surface set which generally uses the same raw data.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    If you were actually a scientist, you'd realize that interpolation using data in proximity which shows relevance isn't not only common it's completed accepted practice. The GISS interpolation makes the base assumption that points within 1200km of a station share a similar temperature anomalies (the 1200km is itself based on observation). Hadcru, assumes the arctic anomalies are the average of the entire planet--effectively reducing the arctic calculated warming exactly where it's the highest based on the few stations it does include at those same latitudes. Neither is an incorrect approach.

    Interestingly if you look at periods which actually get into the realm of climate you find nearly the same overall trends higher to statistical significance (see below).

    All we're missing from this tread now is the obligatory commentary about how all this must be wrong because someone thinks their backyard didn't follow the global average or something similar.

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Lynx-Fox, your comments are always interesting even when not completely relevant, but this thread deals with the short term temperature pattern over the previous 6-8 months and the significance of the NOAA/GISS data showing record highs. Your graphic and comments are interesting but they don't address the discussion. On the contrary, the reality that the NOAA/GISS results continue to increasingly deviate on the high side does provide some insight into the current records obtained by that result set and why we should continue to expect records from NOAA/GISS when the other sets don't report record highs.

    For those interested in a more detailed analysis of these patterns of deviation, see the link I provided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    cypress: Both the Hadley HadCru and NASA GISS do not use the same set of data. They use an 'overlapping' set of surface and ocean temperature stations. HadCRU, however, does not take measurements from Arctic locations, where the strongest warming has been.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Lynx-Fox, your comments are always interesting even when not completely relevant, but this thread deals with the short term temperature pattern over the previous 6-8 months and the significance of the NOAA/GISS data showing record highs. Your graphic and comments are interesting but they don't address the discussion. On the contrary, the reality that the NOAA/GISS results continue to increasingly deviate on the high side does provide some insight into the current records obtained by that result set and why we should continue to expect records from NOAA/GISS when the other sets don't report record highs.

    For those interested in a more detailed analysis of these patterns of deviation, see the link I provided.
    And you think it's relevant only because there's some short term difference in analysis method results between it and another analysis technique that you think cast doubt on the GISS data. You otherwise won't say why, won't show that you actually understand anything much about the subject beyond what comes off some anti-science blog, and probably won't go into any intellectual depth on the subject. (sigh)

    It's your typical obfuscation about science.
    --
    Anyhow if anyone is interested in why NASA uses 1200 km, it's part of a body of work done some 25 years ago that showed better than 50% positive correlations between arctic station temperature anomalies out to that range. Probably the best paper on the subject is:
    Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Lynx-Fox, your comments are always interesting even when not completely relevant, but this thread deals with the short term temperature pattern over the previous 6-8 months and the significance of the NOAA/GISS data showing record highs. Your graphic and comments are interesting but they don't address the discussion. On the contrary, the reality that the NOAA/GISS results continue to increasingly deviate on the high side does provide some insight into the current records obtained by that result set and why we should continue to expect records from NOAA/GISS when the other sets don't report record highs.

    For those interested in a more detailed analysis of these patterns of deviation, see the link I provided.
    And you think it's relevant only because there's some short term difference in analysis method results between it and another analysis technique that you think cast doubt on the GISS data. You otherwise won't say why, won't show that you actually understand anything much about the subject beyond what comes off some anti-science blog, and probably won't go into any intellectual depth on the subject. (sigh)

    It's your typical obfuscation about science.
    In a thread that was tossed out by the site administrator I provided much of the information you claim I have not provided. He tossed it out despite his inability to demonstrate where any of it was incorrect simply because it contradicted his presumptions. It is quite a clever trick because then he and you can accuse me of obfuscation and I have no way to address it.

    If I were to provide the information here, it would be off topic from this thread which would contradict the site rules. I will be happy to discuss it in detail if you start a new thread and assure me my posts will not be deleted and the thread will not be tossed out. I did not appreciate my time being wasted last time.


    --
    Anyhow if anyone is interested in why NASA uses 1200 km, it's part of a body of work done some 25 years ago that showed better than 50% positive correlations between arctic station temperature anomalies out to that range. Probably the best paper on the subject is:
    Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372.
    The link I provided discusses the interpolation issue and provides a good set of alternate measurements that seem to show quite clearly that, at least now or in the current past few years, the practice of interpolation does not seem to be a good model. As Lynx-Fox implies in his complaint above, there are several other significant issues with the NOAA/GISS result set which introduces a warming bias to surface temperature results becoming significant beginning in about 1989.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The link I provided discusses the interpolation issue and provides a good set of alternate measurements that seem to show quite clearly that, at least now or in the current past few years, the practice of interpolation does not seem to be a good model.
    The practice of interpolation, like the practice of averaging and the practice of curve fitting and the practice of integrating, is not itself a model.

    It is a necessity in any attempt to estimate the heat content of the earth's atmosphere, or its global mean temperature, or almost any other similar property. So it will will be a component of any model designed to be compared with actual measurements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The link I provided discusses the interpolation issue and provides a good set of alternate measurements that seem to show quite clearly that, at least now or in the current past few years, the practice of interpolation does not seem to be a good model.
    The practice of interpolation, like the practice of averaging and the practice of curve fitting and the practice of integrating, is not itself a model.

    It is a necessity in any attempt to estimate the heat content of the earth's atmosphere, or its global mean temperature, or almost any other similar property. So it will will be employed in any model designed to use, or have its predictions compared with, actual measurements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    As the article explains, it is the particular process used by NOAA/GISS to estimate surface temperatures where measurements are not made and the particular practice of adjusting localized readings and using them to interpolate over large geographical areas with variable geographical features that introduces warming biases of several types. This article addresses the bias introduced in the polar region. It is not an artifact of interpolation in general, rather the particular approach used in this case.

    I suggest you read the article more carefully, you might not make such errors in the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    As the article explains, it is the particular process used by NOAA/GISS to estimate surface temperatures where measurements are not made and the particular practice of adjusting localized readings and using them to interpolate over large geographical areas with variable geographical features that introduces warming biases of several types.
    No article you have linked accomplishes any such feat of explanation. Assertion, maybe, but explanation - not so much.

    The one you have linked here most recently - if that's the one you talking about - doesn't discuss the "several types" of warming biases at all.

    Further, I am not impressed by attention-deficit pandering little colored pictures that purport to contradict slanted paraphrases of alleged claims by actual researchers who have done actual analysis.

    If the actual claims of the researchers had been included somewhere in the argument, and if the article had actually compared the GISS and GRU data as they claimed to be doing, that would have been a better start.

    The only actual information I got from that article was some insight into the sources of your odd prose style, in which the plain text you post is all but meaningless, and the rest of us are expected to supply the sense by reading some kind of argument into into it. For example:
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    the practice of interpolation does not seem to be a good model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    The past several months of record high surface temperature average as compiled and computed by NOAA/GISS are explained by five primary drivers.

    1. The current period from 1900-2010 represents period of high surface temperatures due to several long term trends in natural climate driving effects that largely ended between 1980 and 2005.
    2. Several human factors contribute to warming including aerosols and GHG's. Empirical evidence indicates the degree of this contribution is on the order of 0.2-0.4 degrees Centigrade.
    3. Surface temperature compilations incorporate several mechanisms that introduce a warming bias into the result sets. These biases are particularly significant for the years after 1989.
    4. El Nino (ENSO) is a short term Pacific Ocean Oscillation that temporarily significantly elevates especially Pacific ocean surface temperatures. Graphics were previously provided. This oscillation was particularly strong between September of 2009 and February of 2010. The current cycle ended earlier this month.
    5. Surface temperature measurements are particularly sparse in the polar regions. The process of interpolating available readings over the polar region is problematic and is especially so for the NOAA/GISS result sets. This is the topic of the paper I linked. The article compares three other polar temperature result sets to the NOAA/GISS set and shows how the NOAA/GISS set is out of step with the other three sets indicating that the NOAA/GISS set incorporates a polar warming bias that explains why the NOAA/GISS results continue to increasingly deviate on the high side from other result sets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The article compares three other polar temperature result sets to the NOAA/GISS set and shows how the NOAA/GISS set is out of step with the other three sets indicating that the NOAA/GISS set incorporates a polar warming bias that explains why the NOAA/GISS results continue to increasingly deviate on the high side from other result sets
    No, it doesn't.

    It shows us some little colored pictures made according to various somewhat obscure criteria, that indicate not much of anything.

    Then it asserts that the NOAA/GISS numbers are biased, because the picture is different for them.

    That is typical of what passes for analysis and argument among this intellectual community.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    4. El Nino (ENSO) is a short term Pacific Ocean Oscillation that temporarily significantly elevates especially Pacific ocean surface temperatures. Graphics were previously provided. This oscillation was particularly strong between September of 2009 and February of 2010. The current cycle ended earlier this month.
    Summer is also a periodic oscillation that drives temperatures upwards.

    It is something of a red herring to suggest that we discount the effect of el nino.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    4. El Nino (ENSO) is a short term Pacific Ocean Oscillation that temporarily significantly elevates especially Pacific ocean surface temperatures. Graphics were previously provided. This oscillation was particularly strong between September of 2009 and February of 2010. The current cycle ended earlier this month.
    Summer is also a periodic oscillation that drives temperatures upwards.
    Yes, thus the reason global temperatures are generally listed as monthly anomaly from norm.

    It is something of a red herring to suggest that we discount the effect of el nino.
    Not sure how you made the leap to that conclusion. I listed 5 factors that are not corrected for in the monthly anomaly trends. ENSO is one of those factors that helps explain the record in NOAA/GISS compilations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    It's a red herring because you usually bring it up, not with intent to educate that usually record high global temperatures are usually El Nino events(true), but with a language of dismissal--as if it somehow minimizes the fact that global high temperature anomaly records are being set.

    You further give this impression by emphasizing such as "This oscillation was particularly strong between September of 2009 and February of 2010." It was a moderate event by comparison to others since the 1950, not particularly strong.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Like everything it depends how it is presented and what the relative comparisons are made to deserve the term strong or weak or average. These are of course relative terms. This one was strong in comparison to others that peaked in the December to January time frame which is the significant factor since these temperature readings are after all anomalies from norm. Clearly, it makes little sense to compare it to El Nino events that peaked in summer for example. It also makes little sense to compare it to events in the past for which these other factors were not present or significant.

    You come across as phony when you attack a legitimate and significant factor as if it was a red herring when it is both relevant and and directly addresses the topic. If you choose to misinterpret my tone and prose, that is your problem.

    Again i have listed five factors that have a part in contributing to the high monthly anomalies over the past several months. ENSO is now negative indicating that after the typical time lag, global sea surface and then troposphere temperatures will decline again. Unfortunately, there is no relief in sight for the warming biases introduced by NOAA and GISS. Again I refer the interested reader to the link I provided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Like everything it depends how it is presented and what the relative comparisons are made to deserve the term strong or weak or average.
    I agree. What I disagree with in your characterization as "particularly strong." That's simply not true compared to other similar events and therefore would not explain in minimize the new temperature anomaly records.

    You come across as phony when you attack a legitimate and significant factor as if it was a red herring when it is both relevant and and directly addresses the topic. If you choose to misinterpret my tone and prose, that is your problem..
    Don't shoot the messenger. It's been explained why it's a red herring. You presented something with overemphasis in a deliberate attempt to deemphasis the relevance of breaking another monthly anomaly record. Unfortunately, that's a common pattern of obfuscation in these science forums. Someone else caught your overemphasis and probably understood your intent tone and prose pretty well.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Like everything it depends how it is presented and what the relative comparisons are made to deserve the term strong or weak or average.
    I agree. What I disagree with in your characterization as "particularly strong." That's simply not true compared to other similar events and therefore would not explain in minimize the new temperature anomaly records.
    Yes because you choose to use a different comparison just as I said.

    You come across as phony when you attack a legitimate and significant factor as if it was a red herring when it is both relevant and and directly addresses the topic. If you choose to misinterpret my tone and prose, that is your problem..
    Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't call it a red herring, someone else did.
    Actually you did call it a red herring. You said: "It's a red herring because..."

    You did present it with overemphasis though--and that is consistent with a common pattern of obfuscation in these science forums. Someone else caught your overemphasis and probably understood your intent tone and prose.
    As I said before, I am not overemphasizing it. It is one of five factors. You seem to be fishing for an issue likely as an attempt to discredit the writer because you cannot discredit the argument. Nice try.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    4. El Nino (ENSO) is a short term Pacific Ocean Oscillation that temporarily significantly elevates especially Pacific ocean surface temperatures. Graphics were previously provided. This oscillation was particularly strong between September of 2009 and February of 2010. The current cycle ended earlier this month.
    Summer is also a periodic oscillation that drives temperatures upwards.
    Yes, thus the reason global temperatures are generally listed as monthly anomaly from norm.

    It is something of a red herring to suggest that we discount the effect of el nino.
    Not sure how you made the leap to that conclusion. I listed 5 factors that are not corrected for in the monthly anomaly trends. ENSO is one of those factors that helps explain the record in NOAA/GISS compilations.
    El nino is not a new phenomenon, and unless it is removed from past records (baseline), removing its effect from the current warm temperatures (as your post implies doing) is nothing more than manipulating the data to promote an agenda.

    Of course El nino is contributing to warming. As is any other number of factors. Noone has argued otherwise. The point is that we are setting temperature records, and that puts firmly to rest any notion that we have entered a 'cooling phase.'

    The denialist camp continues to change tactics in attempts to argue that hey, things really aren't that bad, but one after another argument of theirs falls flat on its face as the planet continues to warm (as AGWers have claimed it would do, for years.)

    Cheers,
    FR
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress

    Not sure how you made the leap to that conclusion. I listed 5 factors that are not corrected for in the monthly anomaly trends. ENSO is one of those factors that helps explain the record in NOAA/GISS compilations.
    El nino is not a new phenomenon, and unless it is removed from past records (baseline), removing its effect from the current warm temperatures (as your post implies doing) is nothing more than manipulating the data to promote an agenda.
    Since ENSO is not normalized as seasonal variations are, it is one of several factors explaining the current anomaly. Your attempt to change my argument by suggesting I implied something otherwise is transparent.

    Of course El nino is contributing to warming.
    Thank you for that turnabout and agreeing that it is a factor in the current anomaly.

    As is any other number of factors. Noone has argued otherwise.
    And again thank-you.

    The point is that we are setting temperature records, and that puts firmly to rest any notion that we have entered a 'cooling phase.'
    It appears we are setting records primarily because of compounding natural oscillations and the artificial biases in the the measurements. I don't think that qualifies.

    The denialist camp continues to change tactics in attempts to argue that hey, things really aren't that bad, but one after another argument of theirs falls flat on its face as the planet continues to warm (as AGWers have claimed it would do, for years.)
    Except that there has not been any significant warming since 2003 and as ocean data indicates, there is now nearly six years worth of excess energy that the globe should have retained if the AGW theory is correct that is nowhere to be found.

    The ad hominems are provocative, but exactly what am I denying? Empirical data continues to show that AGW accounts for less than 1/3 of the warming the IPCC models predict. I agree GHG's have had an effect, so what is your issue?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Except that there has not been any significant warming since 2003
    ? What is your actual claim there?

    As you have pointed out:
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It appears we are setting records primarily because of compounding natural oscillations and the artificial biases in the the measurements
    the natural factors and cycles of the climate did not stop just because people added a third or more to the CO2 concentration.

    The question is of the underlying trend. The measurements of that apparently continue to indicate a strong warming overall of the atmosphere in general - as well as the oceans, etc.

    btw: we are in a cooling phase of the "natural oscillations" - the sun recently at a minimum, the various cycles tending down. So if there were no AGW, shouldn't we now and for the last couple of years be seeing very cold - record cold - temps over most of the planet? By your argument, that is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Except that there has not been any significant warming since 2003
    There's been some since I woke this morning, a good 5 oC.

    so what is your issue?
    ... that you repeatedly pick times and data points in order to attempt to remove responsibility from those of us enjoying a westernized lifestyle, for what is a very serious problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Cute diversion, FR.

    Tell me, how is it a serious problem? Don't you mean it might at some time in the future be problem?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •