Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Reframing Attribution

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 7:04 AM GMT on March 26, 2011

Reframing Attribution:

It the previous entry I wrote about the perils and pitfalls of event attribution. In this entry I want to untangle a few issues and, then, ultimately reframe attribution. Reframe? This is in the spirit of psychology and sociology, a different way to look at something. In this case, take the word, “attribution” and think about the meaning of this word, say, from the point of view of scientists, journalists, politicians ….

To be concrete, start with this scenario.

1) There is an extreme weather event, perhaps a hurricane submerges New Orleans, or a heat wave kills 1000s in Moscow.
2) Advocates say that the event is global warming.
3) Politicians say that the event is global warming.
4) Scientists suggest that the circumstances of the event are consistent with global warming.
5) Journalists ask if the extreme event is natural or global warming.
6) Different groups of scientists hurry to investigate the event. It takes a while.
7) The scientists publish their papers and because the event was newsworthy, the journalists follow up and ask again: Was the event natural or was it global warming?

There is in this scenario entanglement. We have scientists, journalists, and politicians. I have explicitly used the plural form to suggest that there are many perspectives, many points of view, many purposes represented. Because of the presence of political interests, the question is being asked in a social environment that is more political than it is scientific.

In the previous entry, I wrote, “It is hard to see how playing the game of defining extreme events and then attributing that event to ‘climate change’ can ever be won. In fact, it seems like it is a game that necessarily leads to controversy, and controversy is the fuel of talk radio, blogs propagating around the world, and the maintenance of doubt.” The game to which I refer is described above: event, fast public attribution of the event to climate change, scientific investigation and deliberation, scientific conclusion that the event is not wholly-and-solely due to climate change. In the formal and informal media, this game devolves to:

“This event is the proof of global warming,” followed some months later by, “No it is not.”

You can read the previous entry on why I maintain trying to attribute a single event to climate change with a yes-or-no answer or to split our weather into natural-and-changed is not scientifically sensible. That does not mean, however, that we should not study extreme events and place them into context with history, a warming climate, and how they inform our future. In fact, I have maintained that one of the most important tasks for climate scientists to take on is the quantification of variability that is “short-term” compared with the “long-term” normally associated with climate. (See Some Jobs for Modelers, and Ocean, Atmosphere, Ice and Land) Which brings me to “attribution.”

In the discourse described above, amongst the politicians, journalists, and scientists, “attribution” has risen to mean, “Can this event be attributed to climate change?” Sometimes it is worth going back to basics. From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language attribute is “to relate to a particular cause or source.” And from the Glossary of Terms of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Detection and Attribution: Climate varies continually on all time scales. Detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Attribution of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence.”

In fact, neither of these definitions require a yes-or-no, wholly-and-solely answer that a particular event was “caused” by the warming of the planet by increasing greenhouse gases. That requirement has risen from the quagmire of the public discourse.

In the piece Some Jobs for Modelers I talk about “forecast busts.” These are well known to weather buffs, when weather forecasts fail. It is worst when severe weather shows up unexpectedly. In December of 1999 there was a series of Atlantic storms that hit France which were badly forecast. Detailed examination of the observations, the forecast model, and the ability of model to utilize those observations, revealed that there was adequate information to provide a better forecast. Specific failures in the forecast system were identified. (A complicated paper on those storms: Dee et al. 2001) When I think of attribution and a single extreme event, then I think of the detailed scientific investigation of the processes that come together at the occurrence of that event.

There are many reasons to pose such a study. A basic reason is to understand the physical processes. For example, in a historic heat wave, what is the impact of regional changes in the forest, agriculture, and the urban environment? What are the specifics of the atmospheric flow that allow the development of a period of persistent heat? A perfectly legitimate question is whether or not changes in our environment related to greenhouse gases have had a discernible influence on the event.

So that becomes the question. In the complex mix of processes that are responsible for determining the temperature and winds and rain of an extreme event, is there a discernible contribution that can accounted against, attributed to, climate change? To make it more challenging, climate change is not a simple, unrelenting, uniform warming of the surface. Therefore, if there is to be a discernible signal, then it has to rise above the variability, the noise, that is implied by the complexity described in the previous paragraphs. It is not a question of whether or not an extreme event is caused by climate change, it is what influence might be attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases.

That said, there are many reasons to investigate which processes, which causes, are responsible for an extreme event. A fundamental one is to improve the ability to predict the event. Another reason is to understand the impact of the event, assess the risk associated with such events in the future, and, if warranted, develop the ways to better prepare for such events.

I want to return to the my previous blog, which was motivated by a story that originated in the Green Blog by John Rudolf on the New York Times website (March 9, 2011) about the Russian heat wave in the summer of 2010. The news story reported on a paper by Randy Dole and co-authors. Within hours the Dole et al. paper was headlined on both news sites and in blogs that the paper said that the 2010 Russian heat wave had no relation to global warming. It is a source of continuing and intensifying controversy. ( from Climate Progress, recall that above, I deliberately used the plural of scientist.)

Here is the link to the abstract of Dole et al., Was There a Basis for Anticipating the 2010 Russian Heat Wave? Dole et al. take an approach to the problem that is process-based, in the spirit of the process-based approach to a busted forecast. They search for the signal over the noise, and for the 2010 event cannot state definitively that the signal related to the increase of greenhouse gases exceeds the noise. I want to quote, however, two sentences from the “Concluding Remarks” of Dole et al.

“The results suggest that we may be on the cusp of a period in which the probability of such events increases rapidly, due primarily to the influence of projected increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

And looking forward.

“However, as is the case of the 2010 Russian heat waves, events will also occur that are not readily anticipated from knowledge of either prior climate trends or specific climate forcings, and for which advance warning may thus be limited.”

The Dole et al. paper does not state in any way that global warming is unreal. Quite the contrary, they work in a rigorous physics-based approach and investigate this region, at this time, for this event, and ask in the context of a forecasting problem, can a discernible contribution be attributed to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Their method, their analysis, their conclusions - that for some highly particular reasons - the climate change signal has not popped out of the natural variability. But as they say, it has in other places, for other phenomena.

Dole et al. provide one scientific approach to the problem of event attribution. There are other approaches. (see Barriopedro et al. The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the Temperature Map of Europe) The conclusions from these results are likely to be different, and that difference may appear inconsequential to some and enormous to others. And while these differences might appear as important to scientists, my point is that this process of event attribution is a place where the scientific investigation of the climate interfaces, strongly,with the media. Therefore, it is also a place where, by definition, scientific investigation interfaces with the political argument. Politically or in terms of informing the public, a primary result of this process is to build, amplify and maintain doubt. Here, I have tried to reframe attribution. Next, on reframing the dialogue.

r

Previous blogs on the disruptions and communications of climate science. (or how can climate scientists contribute to political discrediting of science.)

Strength in Many Peers

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

What to Do? What to Do?

If Lady Chatterley’s Lover, then …

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org

Categories: Climate Change Climate Change Attribution

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 101 - 151

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index

105. sirmaelstrom 1:25 AM GMT on March 30, 2011
Jeez, cat5hurricane, you're even busier than he is, LOL. Anyway, I probably won't be on long enough to read any of the linked stuff too carefully; I may be on later tonight. A few quick observations... weatherboy1992's first link is to an editorial by a talk-show host, presumably as he states a fairly conservative one. I would expect a piece such as that to contain exaggerations and misrepresentations. I'm sure you wouldn't have to search too hard to find an example from the left as well. Looking quickly, I don't think the rebuttal by John Abraham in his second is exactly totally truthful either. First, I see that the "97% of scientists..." figure in print again. This figure represents a nonscientific sample of only 75 or so scientists from a thesis paper (we've linked in here numerous times...I'll find and insert the link if indeed it is necessary). Skimming down, I see that he chastises the original article for claiming that temperatures for "declining since 1940" when what is actually stated is that at the time of the Newsweek article from 1975 it was believed that temperatures had been declining since 1940. If I remember the old NCAR estimates that were given from the 1980s correctly, it was believed that temperatures had declined significantly over this time. The newer GISS, CRU et al, graphs shows much less decline over this period now, of course. I won't have time at the moment to go through the other links, but a quick look at the third tells me that it appears that Chris Mooney's point-of-view is definitely going to come from the left. I don't have a problem with this per se, as I routinely read not only Fox News and What's Up With That just about as often as ClimateProgress and Daily Kos. I don't consider any of those sites to be objective; I don't even know of a site I would consider objective really. I just try to read the same stories from various points of view and make a decision on what's truth and what's spin on my own. It's an imperfect process to be sure, but I don't know a better one. I might take a closer look at the links later and may have further comment. I'm working on something else at the moment and only taking intermittent breaks to check here. Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

106. sirmaelstrom 1:26 AM GMT on March 30, 2011
Quoting weatherboy1992: I discovered his blog recently and I like it. Fair enough...To each his own. Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

108. sirmaelstrom 1:45 AM GMT on March 30, 2011
№ 107 Thanks. * * * OK guys. I'm going to fix me a double Maker's as a reward for getting this spreadsheet I'm working on half-done, but then I've got to get back to it. I may check back later depending on how late it is. So Long and Good Night if I'm not back. Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

109. HaloReachFan 3:08 AM GMT on March 30, 2011
Quoting cat5hurricane: How's the weather in St. Simons Island, GA? Anyone know? 59 degrees right now. 80% chance of storms tomorrow. You know how much Mikey hates storms. Maybe his buddy will comfort him. Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

110. iceagecoming 3:24 AM GMT on March 30, 2011
It's amazing what gullible warming enthusists can do with one of these... Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown Link Do a search and try to find empirical data on sea level, almost 99 % prediction. Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

112. iceagecoming 3:07 PM GMT on March 30, 2011
It is amazing I cannot find a single report on rising sea levels which have flooded coastal estuaries or low lands anywhere. Did see this report in Europe which indicates no major problems even with the worst case predictions. Basic Messages For the most realistic scenario (25 cm of sea-level rise in 50 years): Changes in the Wadden Sea ecosystem (morphology and biology) are expected not to be substantial. Costs for coastal defence might increase by 5 to 15% For the worst-case scenario (50 cm of sea-level rise in 50 years): The capacity of the system to balance changes might become exhausted. The Wadden Sea tidal basins might start to evolve into tidal lagoons. These morphological changes will substantially influence the biology The costs for coastal defence might double. The "Breakpoint" The group expects that, between the most realistic and the worst-case scenarios, there will be an upper limit of capacity from which the tidal basins will start to evolve in the direction of tidal lagoons (i.e. a reduction of tidal flats). The exact position of these breakpoints, i.e., at which rate of sea-level rise this will occur, varies strongly among the tidal basins. Hence, with regard to the strong natural variability, each basin should be investigated separately. The report of the CPSL served as on an input for the 9th Trilateral Governmental Conference for Protection of the Wadden Sea in Esbjerg, 2001, at which the continuation of the CPSL working group was endorsed. Link And this article about more inflated data. Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels Latest embarrassment comes as key sceptic Benny Peiser backs down in row over fabricated quote. Link Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

114. iceagecoming 3:49 PM GMT on March 30, 2011
One of the few articles I could find that used actual data and not speculative data. RESEARCH PAPERS Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? P. J. Watson The longest continuous Australasian records, Fremantle and Auckland, situated on the western and eastern periphery of the Oceania region, respectively, exhibit remarkably similar trends in the relative 20-year moving average water level time series after 1920. Both time series show a rise in mean sea level of approximately 120 mm between 1920 and 2000 with strong correlation (R2 ≥ 0.93) to fitted second-order polynomial trendlines that reflect a tendency toward a general slowing in the rise of mean sea level (or deceleration) over time on the order of 0.02–0.04 mm/y2. The Fort Denison water level time series after 1940 similarly reflects a decelerating trend in sea level rise at a rate of 0.04 mm/y2 based on a strongly correlated fit (R2 = 0.974) to the second-order polynomial function. This decelerating trend was also evident in the detailed analysis of 25 U.S. tide gauge records longer than 80 years in length (Dean and Houston, pers. comm.) and a general 20th century deceleration, driven predominantly by the negative inflexions around 1960 evident in many global records, are well noted in the literature (Douglas, 1992; Holgate, 2007; Woodworth, 1990; Woodworth, Menédez, and Gehrels, pers. comm.). In considering shorter term recent accelerations, it is evident that there is a high rate of relative sea level rise averaged over the decade centred around 1994. Although average decadal rates of rise in relative ocean water levels are clearly high during the 1990s, they are not remarkable or unusual in the context of the historical record available for each site over the course of the 20th century. Similar conclusions have been drawn by Holgate (2007) in examining global data and by Hannah (2004) examining long-term sea level records for New Zealand. These recent post-1990s short-term accelerations fit within the overall longer term trend of deceleration evident in these long Australasian ocean water level records. Using a 20-year moving average (10 y either side) water level time series limits the current analysis to the year 2000 (although the year 2000 uses data up to 2010). It is probable that if there is any longer term increase of significance in the rate of sea level rise embedded within the latter portion of the record, as distinct from a cyclical short-term attribute, this may take a further 10 to 20 years to influence the longer term time series. Link Where the heck is all the coastal flooding??? Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

116. iceagecoming 6:46 PM GMT on March 30, 2011
PBS Interview with Dr. Singer (Highlights) Atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (NOVA)Do you think, then, this is no longer operating as "normal" science, that there's some kind of pathological mechanism here? I think climate science is on its way to becoming pathological, to becoming abnormal in the sense that it is being guided by the money that's being made available to people. I don't blame people for accepting money. And the people who take the money and do research, by and large, are doing very competent research. [But] you'll find them very careful not to speak out against the global warming "threat"--(I'm putting "threat" in quotes, of course. And you'll find also that when they do speak out, as many of them do, they suffer consequences. They lose support. And I can give you examples of that. Or they have other consequences that are equally disagreeable. And if you're a young professor at a university and want to get tenure, or if you want to get a permanent academic position, you must do published research. And to do published research, you must write proposals to get money to do the research. So you're locked into a vicious spiral here. You have to go along with the current wisdom that global warming is a threat. Otherwise, you're not going to get the job that you want. (NOVA)If you're right and they're wrong, then is what they're doing falsifiable? If, for instance, the next ten years was unusually cold, would that make them give up their theory? The climate business doesn't work the way laboratory science does. If the next ten years turn out to be cold, this by itself does not prove anything. It just makes it less likely that global warming is important. Because people will say, "Well, now instead of having 20 years of satellite data, we have 30 years of satellite data." They'll say, "Well, that's not really long enough. We need 100 years of satellite data that show cooling." And inevitably during the next 100 years, you're going to have some warming, because the climate is constantly changing. Certainly it will change as the solar radiation becomes stronger or weaker. And we know solar radiation does fluctuate on an 11-year cycle and on longer cycles. (NOVA)But my question is: What could convince you that you were wrong? What could convince them they were wrong? What could actually resolve this debate to the satisfaction of honest scientists? If people can always interpret what happened within their model, how do you resolve it? I think that we would have to try to get the models to become better, and try to find more specific fingerprints-as I call them-- in the observations that can either be verified or falsified by models. And the global average temperature simply isn't good enough. It has to be based on geographic variation, or variation with altitude, or temporal variation, or much more detailed measurements. Certainly we know that the models do not agree amongst themselves. So I think the first step is to find out why this is so, and work very hard to at least resolve the differences between [models], and then try to resolve differences between models and observations. Wow, real science, what a novel concept. Link Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

117. iceagecoming 1:19 PM GMT on March 31, 2011
Maybe there is hope yet for some cost reduction at the pump. The economy is in trouble if nothing is done soon. Barack Obama may not have mentioned the Keystone XL crude pipeline expansion specifically at Georgetown University on Wednesday, but the themes of his speech nonetheless support the TransCanada Corp. project. The U.S. president spoke about looking to neighbours with “stready and reliable oil resources,” such as Canada, Mexico and Brazil. He also stated that America will be dependent on oil for “quite some time.” The State Department will ultimately approve the pipeline, so supporters of the project should be pleased, according to RBC Capital Markets analyst Robert Kwan. At the same time, the administration is demonstrating to opponents that it is willing to re-examine the issues surrounding the controversial project. TransCanada has prepared the market for a delay and the State Department is likely to ask the company to make relatively minor modifications to the project to demonstrate efforts to protect the environment, Mr. Kwan told clients. Then it should issue a Presidential permit. Although this has become a political issue, Congressional approval is not required. The analyst expects supporters of the project and Canadian crude to become more vocal, countering a well-organized effort by environmental and other opponents. Keystone currently has 591,000 barrels per day of capacity in operation, delivering crude to Wood River and Patoka, Illinois, as well as Cushing, Oklahoma. Despite pressure restrictions, Mr. Kwan thinks the entire Keystone system could be expanded by a further 200,000 barrels per day. The total cost for the project is roughly $7-billion, with 75% of capital cost overruns to be recovered due to higher tolls. Assuming the Presidential permit is issued by the end of 2011, TransCanada expects to then start construction so the project could be in service by mid-2013. Link Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

121. Neapolitan 12:53 AM GMT on April 02, 2011
*Experts Heat Up Over Berkeley Lab Scientist's Quest to 'Calm' Climate Change Debate. (aka* Anthony Watts' Head Explodes)** The scientist heading up a controversial review of land-surface temperature records has a simple goal. "What I really hope to do is calm the debate" over climate change, said Richard Muller, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST). But that appears to be a tall order, judging by reaction yesterday to the group's preliminary findings, which drew suspicion from climate skeptics and mainstream climate scientists alike. BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre. "The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. That contradicts arguments made by climate skeptics -- including blogger Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That?" -- who allege that many of the weather stations are located in areas that would bias their observations. A station might be placed in a rural area that is eventually enveloped by development, creating a situation where the urban heat island effect could influence the observations it collects, for example. A study published last year by researchers at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found evidence that some weather station temperature data are of poor quality -- but it concluded the problematic data would add a slight bias toward cooling in climate analyses. Watts -- who Muller called "a hero" for his weather station work -- isn't convinced. And he's not happy about the preliminary analysis by Muller's BEST team, judging by comments he posted on his blog. They include a letter rebutting Muller's testimony, which Watts submitted yesterday to the House Science panel before its hearing had concluded. New York Times Article... BEST released the following chart yesterday. Denialists around the globe are upset that their last best hope has been dashed; they now focus their dwindling hopes on the complete data set: It's just science, folks. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11153

123. HaloReachFan 2:40 AM GMT on April 02, 2011
Quoting weatherboy1992: Great post Neapolitan. Thank you. The deniers didn't have a case to make before, but this is another of many nails in the deniers's coffins. I like how your name is weatherboy. Cause the boy at the end sounds great. All I've seen is pictures of graphs posted by sheep saying the Earth is warming. But no proof it is man-made. NO PROOF!!! How long till I see proof? Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

126. HaloReachFan 3:14 AM GMT on April 02, 2011
No links to anything boy? Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

128. HaloReachFan 3:22 AM GMT on April 02, 2011
Quoting weatherboy1992: Now, haloreachfan, you can plug in the absorption spectrum for CO2 and calculate how much mankind's increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing the surface temperature of the Earth, and how much our continued emissions of CO2 will increase temperatures in the future. The math is very straightforward. I am sure you will be able to calculate it easily. Anyway, here's your proof. Refute it if you can. A Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove that the basic radiation equations of physics are wrong! You can call me Nick ;), boy! But I can get a Nobel Prize for doing nothing aka Obama then I'm sure I can get it. This is ridiculous. No links? Then according to yall's rules you made it up. Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

130. HaloReachFan 3:33 AM GMT on April 02, 2011
Quoting weatherboy1992: Nope I didn't make up the equations. I have provided iron-clad proof. If you choose to ignore it or deny it that is your choice. However you did give me a (backhanded) compliment. Attributing to me the basic equations of physics concerning radiation emission. bows Enjoy your weekend. I await your computations with the equations I provided. I can show you made up equations too. Why don't you send a link my way? Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

133. HaloReachFan 3:56 AM GMT on April 02, 2011
Quoting weatherboy1992: Haven't made up any equations. I simply provided the basic, simple math used to compute radiation emissions from black bodies and grey bodies like the Earth. I'll give you the weekend to solve the equations, although you should have been able to solve them by now. FYI to all--if he had taken a college physics course, he would have instantly known the equations I posted are real. Even a basic knowledge of high-school algebra is enough to use the equations. I don't have time to sit and do equations where I get nothing out of them. Some of us have lives rather than being on here all the time. Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

135. Tazmanian 3:58 AM GMT on April 02, 2011
oh boy do i smell troll? Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5088 Comments: 111346

138. atmoaggie 1:37 PM GMT on April 02, 2011
Quoting HaloReachFan: Like they did with JFLORIDA. Um, yeah, JF has been conspicuously absent. What'd he do to get banned? Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

139. martinitony 2:55 PM GMT on April 02, 2011
Quoting atmoaggie: Um, yeah, JF has* been conspicuously absent. What'd he do to get banned?* People travel at this time of year. Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

144. sirmaelstrom 4:26 PM GMT on April 02, 2011
Concerning the preliminary BEST results: For the most part, I still would prefer to wait for the complete official results to make any real comparisons. However, it is interesting that the 2% preliminary results seem to be reasonably similar to the established analyses, especially considering that no corrections for UHI or station relocation have been applied as of yet. For anyone interested, BEST has updated the Initial Findings page. * * * Concerning JFlorida: Seems like it's been weeks since I've seen a post of his. Doesn't he have a second handle, though? * * * Concerning (but not replying to) the "snowball earth" inference at the end of № 136: There is no real correlation of CO₂ to temperature over the PreCambrian through Mesozoic Eras--and likewise no conspicuous drops in CO₂ that have led to "snowball earth" conditions; I guess the alledged "CO₂ thermostat" wasn't functional back then. * * * From a strictly mathematical sense, I see no problem with the equations that weatherboy1992 posted, other than he didn't provide a source (they are however, easy to find given the information he provided). Of course, when considering the earth's climate system there is a lot more to take into account. * * * I'm out for now; will probably be back this evening sometime. Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

Viewing: 101 - 151

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood