Jump to content
The Weather Forums

September 2020 WxObs & Discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The house still stands. They let us in to check on the animals. Without the dogs there 4 of the chickens and 1 of the ducks have been killed, but the sheep and pig are doing well. We hauled fresh wate

Give me a snowflake reaction if you enjoy waking up to new snow falling on top of old snow (Which is actually on top of other snow).    Snow. 

You all suck. Please give me the full assortment of emoticons. Thanks.

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Wonder if there will be any forests left standing in Washington and Oregon by the time this is over.

I think the latest estimates were 600k acres burned in Washington 1 million in Oregon and 3 million in California. I can’t remember the 2015, 2017 numbers or other years. Overall a devastating year.  Not to mention the towns that were mostly or entirely destroyed. 

September rainfall 0.00” 80+ -15 85+ -3 90+ -1 hottest day-97

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TacomaWaWx said:

I think the latest estimates were 600k acres burned in Washington 1 million in Oregon and 3 million in California. I can’t remember the 2015, 2017 numbers or other years. Overall a devastating year.  Not to mention the towns that were mostly or entirely destroyed. 

Devastating is a good word for it. I haven't even fully processed the fact that some of those towns are gone yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TacomaWaWx said:

I think the latest estimates were 600k acres burned in Washington 1 million in Oregon and 3 million in California. I can’t remember the 2015, 2017 numbers or other years. Overall a devastating year.  Not to mention the towns that were mostly or entirely destroyed. 

A large percentage of the acreage in WA was just grasslands in the flash fire event with that wind a week ago.  

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TT-SEA said:

A large percentage of the acreage in WA was just grasslands in the flash fire event with that wind a week ago.  

That is true...but we did lose an entire town in that event. We’re honestly lucky compared to Oregon. 

September rainfall 0.00” 80+ -15 85+ -3 90+ -1 hottest day-97

Link to post
Share on other sites

A pretty typical mid-September day here... 72 and partly sunny and humid with some mid-level clouds at times.   Visibility is still good and the air actually smells fresh.    I can tell by WSDOT cams that the Puget Sound basin from Issaquah westward is still socked in with smoke.    Might flip tomorrow though with easterly flow here.  

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

2007-08 would be fantastic from a precip/snowpack perspective. 
 

Right now I am looking at 2010-11. 
 

Something like 2013-14 would be a disaster. 

2010-2011 was my favorite Lake Tahoe winter ever. Recorded 330" of snow at my house in the Banana belt region of the lake. 2013-2014 was a total turd fest with 45" here that winter which would have been the all time worst if 2014-2015 didn't come along and crush it with 24" of snow for the entire winter. 

  • Excited 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

A large percentage of the acreage in WA was just grasslands in the flash fire event with that wind a week ago.  

If any of those “just grasslands” were intact sagebrush shrub-steppe, they’ve been permanently lost and will be replaced with invasive cheatgrass, at great loss to all of: plant biodiversity, value to wildlife, and value to livestock.

  • Like 1
It's called clown range for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Total rain per the 12Z ECMWF from Thursday at 5 p.m. through Saturday at 5 p.m. in top image... and wind on Saturday in the bottom image.   That should help finally clear the smoke inversion in the basin. 

 

ecmwf-deterministic-washington-precip_48hr_inch-0560000.png

ecmwf-deterministic-washington-wnd10m_stream_kmh-0560000.png

  • Like 2

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Figured you'd be all over that one. At least it's not fast food joints burning down. 😰

We get in the way of natural processes on a pretty regular basis and we’re no match for it.  The dramatic response is entirely understandable but it’s our own construct.  

  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 1

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rubus Leucodermis said:

If any of those “just grasslands” were intact sagebrush shrub-steppe, they’ve been permanently lost and will be replaced with invasive cheatgrass, at great loss to all of: plant biodiversity, value to wildlife, and value to livestock.

Well... if you can figure out a way to stop the dry grasslands of eastern WA from burning in the late summer and early fall then lets hear it.   That has been happening for thousands of years.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deweydog said:

We get in the way of natural processes on a pretty regular basis and we’re no match for it.  The dramatic response is entirely understandable but it’s our own construct.  

Yeah when you get down to the nitty gritty we probably agree but in an immediate sense it should be understandable why people are upset about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12Z ECMWF is almost totally dry for next week... and rain is still offshore at day 10.     Its seems to be shifting a little west with each run now.  

  • Sad 1

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jesse said:

Yeah when you get down to the nitty gritty we probably agree but in an immediate sense it should be understandable why people are upset about it. 

Overdramatizing aspects of it only serves to obscure what is important on a human level.  Most of that has obviously been very politically-driven.

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

Well... if you can figure out a way to stop the dry grasslands of eastern WA from burning in the late summer and early fall then lets hear it.   That has been happening for thousands of years.

Actually, no it hasn’t. Fire was rare in the sagebrush ecosystem pre-colonization. And whether it can easily be stopped is beside the point. There’s been permanent loss. It’s not “mere grassland” (or “mere shrubland”).

Grasslands and shrublands are the Rodney Dangerfields of ecosystems. They don’t get the respect that the more iconic old-growth forests do.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
It's called clown range for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Deweydog said:

Overdramatizing aspects of it only serves to obscure what is important on a human level.  Most of that has obviously been very politically-driven.

Its funny how the culture is different on different forums. I got into a little hot water on Portland Hikers last night for pointing to a series of "RIP" posts for some of the trails lost in fire areas for being overly dramatic. My response was that the places weren't actually dead or gone forever, just different, and where the fires had burnt at low intensity it was probably better for the forest. The author of the post thought I was being too callous.

I will agree that using this stuff as a climate change vehicle is mostly BS. I have gotten pretty deep into the academia side of that stuff and it isn't always pretty seeing how obvious the agendas are.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

12Z ECMWF is almost totally dry for next week... and rain is still offshore at day 10.     Its seems to be shifting a little west with each run now. 

Not implausible that a bombing low would build a ridge out ahead but it's much drier than other morning models.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rubus Leucodermis said:

Actually, no it hasn’t. Fire was rare in the sagebrush ecosystem pre-colonization. And whether it can easily be stopped is beside the point. There’s been permanent loss. It’s not “mere grassland” (or “mere shrubland”).

Grasslands and shrublands are the Rodney Dangerfields of ecosystems. They don’t get the respect that the more iconic old-growth forests do.

It appears that it is difficult to determine how fire behaved in the shrublands before our arrival since there is usually no visible scars.    But fire has been a dominant force across all of western North America for eons.    If shrubland cannot be replaced then it should be gone for good by now because its all going to burn eventually... even just from lightning.   Its a natural process.  

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jesse said:

Its funny how the culture is different on different forums. I got into a little hot water on Portland Hikers last night for pointing to a series of "RIP" posts for some of the trails lost in fire areas for being overly dramatic. My response was that  the places weren't actually dead or gone forever, just different, and where the fires had burnt at low intensity it was probably better for the forest. The author of the post thought I was being too callous.

I will agree that using this stuff as a climate change vehicle is mostly BS. I have gotten pretty deep into the academia side of that stuff and it isn't always pretty seeing how obvious the agendas are.

The trails, the towns are just speed bumps on a road which at some point in time will be driven.  Inconvenient truths.  My social media over the last few days has been a divide of Antifa or climate change hysteria.  Either way, the current social climate is obsessed with assigning blame for what is a sucky, natural process.  

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

It appears that it is difficult to determine how fire behaved in the shrublands before our arrival since there is usually no visible scars.    But fire has been a dominant force across all of western North America for eons.    If shrubland cannot be replaced then it should be gone for good by now because its all going to burn eventually... even just from lightning.   Its a natural process.  

The evidence is pretty strong that fire was rare in the shrub-steppe, because there was an awful lot of it, and its process of recovery from fire is very slow. If fire was more common, there wouldn't have been as much shrub-steppe. Grasslands (without many shrubs) would have predominated.

And what is happening is not a natural process. Today’s shrublands are highly flammable, because cheatgrass has invaded them. The cycle goes: cheatgrass invades shrub-steppe, without displacing all native plants but making it flammable → it burns → cheatgrass bounces back must faster than native plants, creating a virtual monoculture → cheatgrass monoculture (now more flammable than ever) proceeds to burn at regular intervals.

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 2
It's called clown range for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

It appears that it is difficult to determine how fire behaved in the shrublands before our arrival since there is usually no visible scars.    But fire has been a dominant force across all of western North America for eons.    If shrubland cannot be replaced then it should be gone for good by now because its all going to burn eventually... even just from lightning.   Its a natural process.  

Back in 2001, I watched a fire run through the sage near Highway 97 near Malott.  It was on the evening of 9-10-01 and I was helping a colleague’s family do some fire protection for their orchard.  Down valley winds were probably gusting to 20-25 mph and I swear the fire advanced faster than that.  Pretty incredible sight.  We ended up there pretty late and I still associate the next morning watching the news and everything smelling of smoke.

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Up to 70F now. Won't be as warm as yesterday's 83F and I can't see the sun anymore. AQI now back up to 367ppm. I'm becoming skeptical that the late-week event is going to do much of anything and then totally dry again after that. About 0.75" of rain with the most optimistic models for here. That's not going to get it done and if we shift back to easterly winds then I'm going to become concerned for Springfield at that point.

Springfield, Oregon cold season 19-20 Stats:

  • Coldest high: 34 (Nov 30)
  • Coldest low: 20 (Nov 29)
  • Days with below freezing temps: 63 (Most recent: Apr 14)
  • Days with sub-40F highs: 1 (Most recent: Nov 30, 2019) *Fewest all-time*
  • Total snowfall: 0.0"
  • Last accumulating snowfall: February 27, 2019
  • Last sub-freezing high: Jan 14, 2017 (31F)
  • Last White Christmas: 1990
  • Significant wind events (gusts 45+): 0

Personal Stats:

  • Last accumulating snowfall: February 27, 2019
  • Last sub-freezing high: Jan 14, 2017 (31)
  • Last White Christmas: 2008
  • Total snowfall since joining TheWeatherForums: 20.7"

GoFundMe: www.gofundme.com/CollegeBasketballvsEpilepsy

My Twitter @357jerseys4hope

24

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Omegaraptor said:

2010-11 was a pretty meh winter in lowland Oregon but it was a good mountain winter.

2016-17 was a good winter in both the lowlands and the mountains. 

A 2016-17 type winter would be great. Regionally that one still left a lot on the table, but from a 21st Century standpoint 2008-09 is its only rival. I still think we can do better. 

  • Snow 1

Snowfall                                  Precip

2019-20: 23.5"                   2019-20: 36.14" 

2018-19: 63.5"                   2018-19: 66.33"

2017-18: 30.3"                   2017-18: 59.83"

2016-17: 49.2"                   2016-17: 97.58"

2015-16: 11.75"                 2015-16: 68.67"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"
2012-13: 16.75"
2011-12: 98.5"                   2011-12: 92.67"

 

It's always sunny at Winters Hill! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil said:

I was leaning towards a 2007/08 type outcome until the QBO had another hiccup and the IPWP consolidated.

Now it looks much more like a canonical Niña/+QBO setup, which is actually the coldest winter setup possible for the PNW region, but also leans drier/less zonal.

Hey Phil, if I recall correctly, last January you had said that this upcoming winter 2020/2021 would likely be a -QBO. Now it looks like a +QBO, so that change in forecast would be good news for cold and snow lovers in the PNW? Especially given that a La Nina looks highly likely. In fact, this winter we may have all the ingredients in place, which are:

Nina/+QBO/Low Solar 

Therefore, there may be hope for a legit cold/snowy winter out here in the PNW, correct me if I'm wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Deweydog said:

The trails, the towns are just speed bumps on a road which at some point in time will be driven.  Inconvenient truths.  My social media over the last few days has been a divide of Antifa or climate change hysteria.  Either way, the current social climate is obsessed with assigning blame for what is a sucky, natural process.  

Yes but it could also be easily argued that our meddling hasn’t helped. The Smokey bear mentality of much of the 20th century assured frequent low intensity fires were all but absent from the forest when they were in fact crucial. Especially East of the crest. Now we have these giant stand replacing fires, which historically weren’t nearly as common, making up for lost time.

The warm and dry last decade definitely didn’t help either. Last time I was up the little north Santiam there were so many standing dead Douglas fir trees from drought kill I thought to myself it was probably just a matter of time. Whether you want to blame the inordinately warm and dry summer conditions on CO2, Tim, or natural cycles probably depends on your political leanings. But there is no doubt our warm season climate becoming much warmer and drier (for longer) is playing a role in the frequency and severity of of this stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TacomaWaWx said:

I think the latest estimates were 600k acres burned in Washington 1 million in Oregon and 3 million in California. I can’t remember the 2015, 2017 numbers or other years. Overall a devastating year.  Not to mention the towns that were mostly or entirely destroyed. 

Just to throw BC into the mix.  2017 saw 3.0 million acres burn. 2018 saw 3.34 million acres burn.  So far this year less than 40k acres have burned.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Yes but it could also be easily argued that our meddling hasn’t helped. The Smokey bear mentality of much of the 20th century assured low intensity fires were all but absent from the forest when they were in fact crucial. Especially East of the crest. Now we have these giant stand replacing fires, which historically weren’t nearly as common, making up for lost time.

The warm and dry last decade definitely didn’t help either. Last time I was up the little north Santiam there were so many standing dead Douglas fir trees from drought kill I thought to myself it was probably just a matter of time. Whether you want to blame the inordinately warm and dry summer conditions on CO2, Tim, or natural cycles probably depends on your political leanings. But it is no doubt our warm season climate becoming much warmer and drier is playing a role in the frequency and severity of of this stuff.

Both true.  A lack of effective forest management and climate change are big factors.  And that’s about where I like to end it because beyond it the discussion just goes nowhere good.

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ShawniganLake said:

Just to throw BC into the mix.  2017 saw 3.0 million acres burn. 2018 saw 3.34 million acres burn.  So far this year less than 40k acres have burned.  

You need to put narrative busting under your interests on profile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jesse said:

Yes but it could also be easily argued that our meddling hasn’t helped. The Smokey bear mentality of much of the 20th century assured low intensity fires were all but absent from the forest when they were in fact crucial. Especially East of the crest. Now we have these giant stand replacing fires, which historically weren’t nearly as common, making up for lost time.

It certainly hasn’t. Unlike the shrub-steppe, many of our forests are fire ecosystems, particularly ponderosa pine forests, which do best if burned with low-intensity fires every five to 20 years, and as a result have been badly harmed by over a century of fire suppression.

Others have mentioned intervening to remove all the extra vegetation that’s grown in these due to fire suppression. That would work, in fact, it has worked where it has been done. Then, once the excess vegetation has been removed, the forest can be burned, and won't be catastrophic. Then just let fires burn from then on.

The trouble is funding the restoration forestry. It doesn’t pay for itself, because the vegetation with the most commercial value (large trees) are what is least flammable and therefore is what must be left, while that with the least value (brush, small trees), is what needs to be removed.

If someone ever comes up with a way to economically harvest the brush and small trees, it will be a tremendous boon, as it would mean that restoration forestry could be made to pay for itself. There is research along these lines, with some limited success, but no big breakthroughs yet.

I’ve seen east side forests that have had (subsidized) restoration forestry applied to them. They look very nice. Large, widely-spaced trees, with an understory mostly of bunch grasses.

  • Like 3
It's called clown range for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rubus Leucodermis said:

It certainly hasn’t. Unlike the shrub-steppe, many of our forests are fire ecosystems, particularly ponderosa pine forests, which do best if burned with low-intensity fires every five to 20 years, and as a result have been badly harmed by over a century of fire suppression.

Others have mentioned intervening to remove all the extra vegetation that’s grown in these due to fire suppression. That would work, in fact, it has worked where it has been done. Then, once the excess vegetation has been removed, the forest can be burned, and won't be catastrophic. Then just let fires burn from then on.

The trouble is funding the restoration forestry. It doesn’t pay for itself, because the vegetation with the most commercial value (large trees) are what is least flammable and therefore is what must be left, while that with the least value (brush, small trees), is what needs to be removed.

If someone ever comes up with a way to economically harvest the brush and small trees, it will be a tremendous boon, as it would mean that restoration forestry could be made to pay for itself. There is research along these lines, with some limited success, but no big breakthroughs yet.

I’ve seen east side forests that have had (subsidized) restoration forestry applied to them. They look very nice. Large, widely-spaced trees, with an understory mostly of bunch grasses.

Interesting.

You are quite knowledgeable on this subject. 

  • Kek 1

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites

12Z EPS shows a ridge next week like the ECMWF and then a cool down around day 10 and 11 and then builds a big ridge back in again quickly.

 

ecmwf-ensemble-avg-namer-t850_anom_stream-0905600.png

ecmwf-ensemble-avg-namer-t850_anom_stream-1078400.png

ecmwf-ensemble-avg-namer-t850_anom_stream-1294400.png

  • Downvote 1

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were academic papers published as early as the 1950s talking about how fire typically occurs in 100-250 year intervals in the Western Oregon Cascades. The Beachie Creek/Riverside Fires are burning in the old scar of the 1865 Silverton Fire. Pretty much right on schedule. Major West Cascade Fires typically occur in the conditions we saw early last week and are more explosive and intense due to the long intervals between conflagrations. 

  • Thanks 1

Snowfall                                  Precip

2019-20: 23.5"                   2019-20: 36.14" 

2018-19: 63.5"                   2018-19: 66.33"

2017-18: 30.3"                   2017-18: 59.83"

2016-17: 49.2"                   2016-17: 97.58"

2015-16: 11.75"                 2015-16: 68.67"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"
2012-13: 16.75"
2011-12: 98.5"                   2011-12: 92.67"

 

It's always sunny at Winters Hill! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

Interesting.

You are quite knowledgeable on this subject. 

Thanks. I'm a self-taught botanist. I do plant surveys, often on the east side of the Cascades (most of the biodiversity in Washington is on the east side).

If you want to ever see some examples of restoration forestry, try the Sinlahekin Wildlife Area in Okanogan County.

  • Downvote 1
It's called clown range for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

There were academic papers published as early as the 1950s talking about how fire typically occurs in 100-250 year intervals in the Western Oregon Cascades. The Beachie Creek/Riverside Fires are burning in the old scar of the 1865 Silverton Fire. Pretty much right on schedule. Major West Cascade Fires typically occur in the conditions we saw early last week and are more explosive and intense due to the long intervals between conflagrations. 

Up to 90% of those fires were also started by individuals pledging allegiance to Antifa.

  • Kek 2

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

There were academic papers published as early as the 1950s talking about how fire typically occurs in 100-250 year intervals in the Western Oregon Cascades. The Beachie Creek/Riverside Fires are burning in the old scar of the 1865 Silverton Fire. Pretty much right on schedule. Major West Cascade Fires typically occur in the conditions we saw early last week and are more explosive and intense due to the long intervals between conflagrations. 

ARkStorms also happen about once every 150-250 years

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

There were academic papers published as early as the 1950s talking about how fire typically occurs in 100-250 year intervals in the Western Oregon Cascades. The Beachie Creek/Riverside Fires are burning in the old scar of the 1865 Silverton Fire. Pretty much right on schedule. Major West Cascade Fires typically occur in the conditions we saw early last week and are more explosive and intense due to the long intervals between conflagrations. 

 

Wow... just read about the Silverton fire in 1865.   Almost 1 million acres.   Crazy.

The climate change alarmists must have been pounding social media back then.   😀

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rubus Leucodermis said:

It certainly hasn’t. Unlike the shrub-steppe, many of our forests are fire ecosystems, particularly ponderosa pine forests, which do best if burned with low-intensity fires every five to 20 years, and as a result have been badly harmed by over a century of fire suppression.

Others have mentioned intervening to remove all the extra vegetation that’s grown in these due to fire suppression. That would work, in fact, it has worked where it has been done. Then, once the excess vegetation has been removed, the forest can be burned, and won't be catastrophic. Then just let fires burn from then on.

The trouble is funding the restoration forestry. It doesn’t pay for itself, because the vegetation with the most commercial value (large trees) are what is least flammable and therefore is what must be left, while that with the least value (brush, small trees), is what needs to be removed.

If someone ever comes up with a way to economically harvest the brush and small trees, it will be a tremendous boon, as it would mean that restoration forestry could be made to pay for itself. There is research along these lines, with some limited success, but no big breakthroughs yet.

I’ve seen east side forests that have had (subsidized) restoration forestry applied to them. They look very nice. Large, widely-spaced trees, with an understory mostly of bunch grasses.

That would be very welcome to see. I prefer that over messy, overgrown brush.

  • Haha 1
  • Angry 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...