|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment?
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
KWC wrote, quote:
Global Warming is an issue for several reasons, such as the Sahara Desert moving south.
Why would the desert move south?
I understand that cyclical systems tend to handle increased load by phase shift rather than magnitude increase. Since the earth is a sphere, this might indicate a shift in the desert belt. But why south? I would think north is both more likely and more dangerous.
The main desert belt is formed when because warm, equatorial air rises. As it rises it cools and dumps rain in the tropical rain forests. It then moves away from the equator and falls back to the surface. As it falls, it heats. Lacking water, it's dry.
In many ways this is like a heat engine. The heat from the equator is circulated north to where the sun strikes at less of an angle.
If there's more heat in the air, wouldn't the air stay up longer and move further north?
Of course a northward movement places the biggest desert region on top of the Mediterranean. It can then quickly reload with water which is the main greenhouse gas...
Still the movement should only be a few miles. I hope.
Still if it becomes a burden, we can dump a few gallons of long chain alcohols on the water where it will impede evaporation.
If it does move south, it would back away from the sea so we're good on a global level anyway. (It sucks to be a poor African though.)
Alan, this speaks to your point about prevention being better than curing. I would ask, "For who?"
Certainly the poor in low lying coastal regions are in trouble. But rain falls and global warming will likely increase that rain. It would fall in different places. Owners of lush farm land could find themselves in deserts, but desert owners would benefit.
It's not at all clear to me that the net effect would be bad.
Also, one of the strongest arguments against global warming is the lack of a rush in the real estate markets to adjust to the possibility of global warming. Smart money seems to be discounting global warming. Of course smart money has been wrong before...
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
Until recently the increase in the size of the Sahara was put down, without any controversy, to over-grazing mostly by goats.
I see that global warming is trying to get in on the act now.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Smart money seems to be discounting global warming.
That's untrue. The insurance industry is massive, smart, and gradually becoming very concerned.
Anything that scares policyholders into paying higher premiums will be welcomed by the Insurance Industry.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Thermodynamics
Oh dear.
You quoted a creationist website.
Was this a mistake, or do you really think they have something to add to a debate on science? This marks a new low in the quality of information sources which you seem prepared to accept as authoritative.
I notice that you are once again quoting heat capacities in an attempt to dispute 100-year old, extremely well-known and non-controversial science which has nothing to do with heat capacities. As this was the point that I came in back on page 3, I think I'm almost done here. I'm truly sorry that nothing you've read in this thread here has altered your stance at all - I had no expectation of changing your mind about the reality of AGW or anything to do with public policy, but I had hope that you'd take some of the basic science that you were getting wrong on board. I always find that if one wishes to have a strong opinion on an issue, it helps to know what one is talking about.
Donning my Columbo raincoat, I just have one more question. Given that you don't believe in the greenhouse effect as stated in textbooks the world over, how do you explain the surface temperature of the planet being +14 Celsius?
Some background: The earth has an albedo of 0.3, meaning that it reflects 30% of the suns radiation, and absorbs 70% of it. The sun gives us an average of 342 Watts/metre squared, so the earth absorbs 70% of this, which is 239 W/m^2 (NB: I'm including the atmosphere in "the earth" here and below).
If the earth kept on accumulating heat from the sun, it would have boiled away into space long ago: it has to get rid of this energy somehow. There are 3 ways a body can lose heat: conduction, convection and radiation. The first two don't apply to a body in the vacuum of space (as ken pointed out), so it must radiate.
There's a nifty little relationship called Stefan's Law (or the Stefan-Boltzman Law if you must): a 19th century bit of experimental science which states: quote:
the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time ... is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T
In other words, the apparent temperature of the earth, as seen from space, can be simply calculated given this figure of 239 W/m^2. The answer is 255 Kelvin, which is -18 Celsius (I think the linked site assumes 240 rather than 239. This really doesn't matter).
So: from space, a passing alien would think that the earth has a temperature of -18 degrees C. However, the actual surface temperature is 32 degrees warmer than this, at +14 degrees C.
If you reject the greenhouse effect "hypothesis", the burden is on you to come up with an alternative explanation that can account for the facts. You'll notice that "heat rises" doesn't get you very far here.
- Chris.
PS: For those interested, there's a lot of background in Wikipedia under Earth's Energy Budget - you do need to divide their solar flux figure by 2 to allow for the fact that only half the earth is illuminated at any time. For the True Believer™ I would recommend the IPCC AR4 FAQ, which much to my surprise is a really good read.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Smart money seems to be discounting global warming.
That's untrue. The insurance industry is massive, smart, and gradually becoming very concerned.
Anything that scares policyholders into paying higher premiums will be welcomed by the Insurance Industry.
Anything? What if it is more powerful storms, more uncertain weather because of the extra energy in the system? Sounds a high price to pay if you gain a bit more in premiums but have to pay out billions for infrastructure damage from the weather.
What is your take on that Times article about the destruction of data now that the article has been shown to be in error?
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks very much, sanityman (Chris). Since I made this earlier comment
quote:
The evidence for (so-called) "greenhouse effects" is impressive, not just on planet earth but elsewhere in our solar system. In my admittedly limited and lay understanding, one of the things that atmospheres do is ameliorate the effects of radiation. I think the mean surface temperature of the earth would be much lower if the earth did not have an atmosphere.
I've been digging around in my memory and online references for confirmations. But you've provided both some science and some very helpful links.
I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.
But what is undeniable is that atmospheres do work in this ameliorating way - and not just on earth.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
You quoted a creationist website. [...] This marks a new low in the quality of information sources which you seem prepared to accept as authoritative.
Not even close. On a thread about immigration she quoted from a website which - according to the lurid flashing home page - was written by a unicorn. It was the best source ever.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.
Actually... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Glass is transparent to shorter wavelength light, but opaque to long IR. So sunlight goes through, is converted to thermal energy, and is unable to escape.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Glass is transparent to shorter wavelength light, but opaque to long IR. So sunlight goes through, is converted to thermal energy, and is unable to escape.
But that isn't a greenhouse's main warming mechanism. The most important aspect is that air is trapped, allowing it to heat up without being blown away.
This was demonstrated in the 19th century. Some salt crystals are transparent to IR, but a box made from salt heats up as effectively as a glass box. People have been complaining about the inaccurate name for a long time now.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, that's right, Doc Tor, I spoke too simply. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about convection - the greenhouse roof and walls act as a barrier. Still don't like the metaphor ...
[xposted with Hiro, who said it better!]
[ 02. December 2009, 15:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Yes, the name "Greenhouse Effect" is unfortunate as it gives deniers ammunition as they can claim that scientists believe silly, clearly incorrect things about CO2 heating up the earth.
A few months ago I heard an arse called Stott on the subject on BBC Radio 4. He's a professor of something, but not climate science, though it doesn't stop him pontificating on any subject, on the strength of his title. Geography, I think is his area. When an audience member asked the panel about the Greenhouse Effect, his answer was that there isn't a physical barrier at the top of the atmosphere, so global warming isn't happening (or at least isn't our fault). Clearly he's either a complete arse or deeply disingenuous and I can't decide which is worse for a professor. He's the Home Planet programme's resident denier.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Alwyn, yes I am including those. Hurricanes are extreme events. They are loosely related to global warming, if at all. Broader effects will dominate.
Human health concerns are complex, but they are less related to climate than ever before. Most people live in drywall boxes anyway. It's called urbanization.
Local rather than global effects would seem to apply. Look at the rise in disease after the Aswan High Dam was built for an example of the sort of problem that might arise. But reductions in malaria are also possible. It's hard to say which will dominate.
From your link, quote:
Even without climate change, population pressure alone will cause a spike in food prices without intervention, according to IFPRI's economic model
Without "intervention" this will happen. I might define intervention as building new farms in the thousands of square miles of farmland opened up by rising temperatures.
Unfortunately for the food supply, global warming may not occur. Climate change certainly will though. The climate always does change. We will need to make new farms and make the ones we have better.
If global warming is occurring and man made, it is IMO far more likely to be due to human irrigation than CO2. If this is true, the proposed treaty may require the destruction of major parts of our food supply.
We've chosen the route of government intervention.
It's now illegal in the U.S. to raise food without signing on to a government plan. What happens when ADM decides it needs higher prices and sabotages the food supply through backing poor legislation? Intervention is not always for the good.
The human economy is mathematically complex like the weather. Predicting either is difficult. The only constant seems to be change.
This brings us to what I like about the treaty. It demands that decisions be based on science. As long as we stick to science as being the application of the scientific method (rather than "value added" science) we should do fine with it. The truth will win in the end.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've been digging around in my memory and online references for confirmations. But you've provided both some science and some very helpful links.
I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.
But what is undeniable is that atmospheres do work in this ameliorating way - and not just on earth.
Right, now I'm quitting this discussion. You're all in denial.
Of course the earth's atmosphere doesn't work this way, that's why the whole idea of us creating global warming by our rising output of CO2 is absolute bloody nonsense
But, this is the way AGW is sold, this is not a metaphor for the United Nations and IPCC links I posted explaining the blanket, this is what they say is actually happening.
This is what they say the problem is, CO2 builds up in the air like blanket and traps heat and radiates it back to earth, so it's all our fault.
Argue against what is actually being said, not the straw man excuses you're concocting.
If you're all trying to deny it by saying it isn't like a blanket, then welcome to the skeptics corner.
CO2 isn't capable of being that. Man made global warming is junk science. This is political propaganda designed to fool the majority who take science on trust.
Why add to it?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks very much, sanityman (Chris). Since I made this earlier comment
quote:
The evidence for (so-called) "greenhouse effects" is impressive, not just on planet earth but elsewhere in our solar system. In my admittedly limited and lay understanding, one of the things that atmospheres do is ameliorate the effects of radiation. I think the mean surface temperature of the earth would be much lower if the earth did not have an atmosphere.
I've been digging around in my memory and online references for confirmations. But you've provided both some science and some very helpful links.
I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.
But what is undeniable is that atmospheres do work in this ameliorating way - and not just on earth.
Barnabas 62, sorry - I meant to reference your post, as you got me thinking about the difference in the mean surface temperature thing. Thanks!
Incidentally, realClimate have just posted The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps, and their step (1) is basically what I was trying to say. I prefer my explanation, but I think they're writing for a more technical audience.
Cheers,
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you're all trying to deny it by saying it isn't like a blanket, then welcome to the skeptics corner.
All scientists are inherently sceptics. That's what makes us scientists. We want to understand what makes something work, and we fiddle with stuff until we've proved to our satisfaction that either the existing theory is right, or it's wrong and we get a Nobel prize.
But as someone on another forum said: quote:
Ignoring the facts doesn't make you a sceptic. It makes you a tosser.
You've impugned every single scientist who doesn't happen to agree with your unscientific understanding of a complex multi-disciplinary phenomena. Guess where I'm putting my trust?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kid Who Cracked
Shipmate
# 13963
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
KWC wrote, quote:
Global Warming is an issue for several reasons, such as the Sahara Desert moving south.
Why would the desert move south?
I understand that cyclical systems tend to handle increased load by phase shift rather than magnitude increase. Since the earth is a sphere, this might indicate a shift in the desert belt. But why south? I would think north is both more likely and more dangerous.
The main desert belt is formed when because warm, equatorial air rises. As it rises it cools and dumps rain in the tropical rain forests. It then moves away from the equator and falls back to the surface. As it falls, it heats. Lacking water, it's dry.
In many ways this is like a heat engine. The heat from the equator is circulated north to where the sun strikes at less of an angle.
If there's more heat in the air, wouldn't the air stay up longer and move further north?
Of course a northward movement places the biggest desert region on top of the Mediterranean. It can then quickly reload with water which is the main greenhouse gas...
Still the movement should only be a few miles. I hope.
Still if it becomes a burden, we can dump a few gallons of long chain alcohols on the water where it will impede evaporation.
If it does move south, it would back away from the sea so we're good on a global level anyway. (It sucks to be a poor African though.)
Alan, this speaks to your point about prevention being better than curing. I would ask, "For who?"
Certainly the poor in low lying coastal regions are in trouble. But rain falls and global warming will likely increase that rain. It would fall in different places. Owners of lush farm land could find themselves in deserts, but desert owners would benefit.
It's not at all clear to me that the net effect would be bad.
Here is one article concerning it. Here is another, if you're interested.
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
That's a mis-characterisation of the debate Kid Who Cracked, the global warming hypothesis is a majority position, not a case of "science" versus a political group. Both the majority and the minority positions are each making a political case for themselves.
Are you sure? It's not a political issue, although it has turned into that. It's an objective, scientific issue. What to do about it is a political issue. Yet many of the climate change deniers seem to have conservative agendas. The scientific community is in great agreement about it. Try this article for instance. I've also checked many of the top science publications, and all seem to be in agreement (try Discover, Science, Scientific American). They could all be wrong, but I find that hard to believe.
Can you give an example of a reputable scientific source that denies man-made global warming or global warming in general?
Sorry if I come off as elitist. I admit I don't know a lot, and I don't have the tools to do research on my own, so I have to trust someone else. I feel I'm in good company.
Posts: 532 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've been digging around in my memory and online references for confirmations. But you've provided both some science and some very helpful links.
I do think the term greenhouse effect is misleading. [I think greenhouses work by trapping warm air so that heat is not lost by convection. That is not the way atmospheres work]. I guess we're now stuck with it and will just have to remember that it is a metaphor.
But what is undeniable is that atmospheres do work in this ameliorating way - and not just on earth.
Right, now I'm quitting this discussion. You're all in denial.
Of course the earth's atmosphere doesn't work this way, that's why the whole idea of us creating global warming by our rising output of CO2 is absolute bloody nonsense
Too hasty, Myrrh. Clearly you did not see this
quote:
The argument is not about the creation of a (so-called) "greenhouse effect", it is whether human actions have produced an enhanced (so-called) "greenhouse effect". The evidence for (so-called) "greenhouse effects" is impressive, not just on planet earth but elsewhere in our solar system. In my admittedly limited and lay understanding, one of the things that atmospheres do is ameliorate the effects of radiation. I think the mean surface temperature of the earth would be much lower if the earth did not have an atmosphere.
So the science which seeks to investigate in some detail why atmospheres behave in this way, and what might cause the behaviour of atmospheres to change, has a long pedigree.
That's a quote from a post by me on p9 of this thread. Note the word "enhanced". A proper understanding of the way atmospheres work leaves wide open the issue of what effects changes to atmospheres may produce. So there is scope for sceptics, believers and in-betweeners. But I think the clarification of terms is useful. And I must say that your "heat rises" and "thermodynamics" posts did not exactly fill me with confidence that you had a clear understanding of these matters. Read sanityman's post again.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Barnabas, 'enhanced' is goobledegook, if there's no greenhouse, then enhanced is nonsense.
What I'm seeing here is support for AGW against all reasonable science and then apologetics denying the very premise of this claim for CO2!
For example Alan and others saying Greenhouse is just a metaphor, but then unable to provide any way that CO2 can achieve this so called ability to drive global warming, but still saying AGW is real.
So, us skeptics argue that the science isn't there for the actual method that is officially stated and of course any reasonably intelligent explorer would agree, but to then keep making unwarranted support for it with attendant belittling of opponents to it by destroying the base on which this claim is made is simply absurd.
And annoying. When I've made valid points that CO2 is incapable of doing this in the official method claiming it does, then I expect better than the the comments I've had here from some.
The point remains, if those supporting AGW are not arguing from the official method of explaining this, which is impossible to uphold, then how do they then explain CO2 drives global warming.
The reason I'm not getting any replies, except the usual denigration, is that there is no way it can.
Denial that earth's atmosphere is a greenhouse immediately takes one into skeptics, that's the denial I'm seeing played out here.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
For example Alan and others saying Greenhouse is just a metaphor, but then unable to provide any way that CO2 can achieve this so called ability to drive global warming, but still saying AGW is real.
Erm, I have tried to explain how CO2 (and other molecules in the atmosphere) causes the so-called greenhouse effect. These molecules absorb sections of the IR radiation spectrum, and pass that energy on to the air they're parts of. The effect is like a greenhouse or blanket because it reduces heat transfer from the surface of the planet to space, just as a blanket reduces heat flow from your sleeping body to the bedroom and a greenhouse reduces heat flow from around your prize tomatoes to the garden. The effect is unlike these metaphors because the mechanism is different - blankets and greenhouses work by reducing convection, CO2 etc work by reducing radiation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
There's a general consensus that some type of human caused global warming is happening. (That doesn't mean I believe it, just that most scientists do.)
Local effects are much more problematic. Wild claims about much hotter and dryer deserts are silly though. As this map of outgoing radiation shows, the desert regions emit about 50% more heat than the wetter regions.
Since the amount of heat hitting the Earth is mostly a constant, any large increase in outgoing radiation surface would cause significant cooling.
In addition radiative energy is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. An 8 K increase would also increase cooling. This extra cooling would take place at frequencies covered by water vapor rather than CO2. Because of this hotter wet areas might not emit as well as deserts would.
There could be some small extra desert area formed. But any large scale changes would need to be offset by shrinking deserts elsewhere. More likely is a shrinking of current deserts and a growth of new desert regions in wealthier areas.
Of course Africa will be hurt the worst in human terms because they are the poorest. But lacking a huge military intervention, that's not likely to change.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
DJ - Deserts are the product of rainfall patterns, not direct heating.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Croesos, tell that to those who equate desertification to global warming.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Barnabas, 'enhanced' is goobledegook, if there's no greenhouse, then enhanced is nonsense.
<snip>
Denial that earth's atmosphere is a greenhouse immediately takes one into skeptics, that's the denial I'm seeing played out here.
You're wrong. To my mind, there would appear to be at least two categories of sceptics
1. Those who accept the mechanism that Alan and sanityman and others have described as a valid explanation (in part or in whole) for natural so-called greenhouse effects (i.e. a reason why an atmosphere keeps planets warmer than they would be if there were no atmosphere) but deny, or are not yet sure, that the effects of human activities have made any significant difference to this natural effect.
2. Those who deny the validity of that explanation altogether.
Any in category 2 would strengthen their cause by finding an answer to the non-trivial conundrum sanityman posed here. After he donned his Columbo raincoat.
[ 02. December 2009, 22:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kid Who Cracked
Shipmate
# 13963
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, tell that to those who equate desertification to global warming.
Climate changes affect rainfall though, according to the first article I mentioned. Help me out scientists, is this the case? I did find a National Geographic article that does suggest some places are getting greener. In any case, it's just one issue among several with climate change, and even if desertification is not a problem, global warming still is.
Posts: 532 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
As this map of outgoing radiation shows, the desert regions emit about 50% more heat than the wetter regions.
Really? By color code, it looks like the longwave radiation from the Indian Ocean is at least as high as any desert. I think I'm on fairly safe ground in considering this to be one of the "wetter regions", so your interpretation seems pretty weak.
Fortunately, people who would like a more considered summary of the vulnerability of deserts (and other ecosystems) to climate change can read this chapter of the "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability" volume of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Dave, here's a nice picture of macro-circulation of the atmosphere. As you can see the "hot" spot over the Arabian Sea seems to be coming off India.
In any case the down-drafts from the meeting of the Ferrel and Hadley Cells are the cause of he dry air. But dry air landing on water creates wet air downwind faster than such air landing on deserts.
Also, keep in mind the radiation graph data was taken on a single day. Mountains, land use, El Ninos and hundreds of other things affect this as well.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
For example Alan and others saying Greenhouse is just a metaphor, but then unable to provide any way that CO2 can achieve this so called ability to drive global warming, but still saying AGW is real.
Erm, I have tried to explain how CO2 (and other molecules in the atmosphere) causes the so-called greenhouse effect. These molecules absorb sections of the IR radiation spectrum, and pass that energy on to the air they're parts of. The effect is like a greenhouse or blanket because it reduces heat transfer from the surface of the planet to space, just as a blanket reduces heat flow from your sleeping body to the bedroom and a greenhouse reduces heat flow from around your prize tomatoes to the garden. The effect is unlike these metaphors because the mechanism is different - blankets and greenhouses work by reducing convection, CO2 etc work by reducing radiation.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
CO2 cannot be a blanket. CO2 cannot be a blanket.
It is heavier than air. Gosh, is it a coincidence or what? CO2 is heavier than air and comes back down to earth to feed the plants we need for life. CO2 up in the air in your greenhouse blanket would starve the earth.
Get real.
CO2 is the essential food of all life on earth.
CO2 is not capable of storing heat. It has a heat capacity coefficient less than 1. It heats quickly and as quickly gives it away. It is not capable of being a blanket like clouds and water vapour because water has a coefficient of 4+.
CO2, and all, behave according to the laws of thermodynamics. NOTHING can store heat. Not even your thermos. Heat leaves as soon as it can to mix with whatever is colder, with CO2 this happens instantly. It is not even capable of delaying loss of heat, radiation (see heat capacity).
CO2 is logarathmic. It reaches saturation point quickly, see previous explanation. After x amount of warming for y of CO2 it needs many, many times the amount to raise it to double warming, until no matter how much CO2 is added it does not absorb any more. It doesn't matter how much CO2 we pump into the air. There isn't enough CO2 in the world to raise global temperatures 6 degrees. Even if it could physically do this, i.e. if earth was a closed greenhouse system. It isn't.
CO2 is only capable of taking in a very small part of the IR spectrum. What it absorbs is given away instantly to whatever is around colder, heat rises, as a blanket it's useless. A blanket of CO2 wouldn't trap your body heat, it would pass it on immediately to the cold above it. Ad infinitum.
ad infinitum.
Myrrh
Barnabas, I take it back. They not in denial, they really believe this nonsense.
It is proved from observation and real scientific nous that rises in CO2 follow rises in global temperature, by 800 freakin' years in a recurring pattern over the last half million years..
CO2 has never been shown to drive global warming. Observation. It is incapable of acting as a blanket to create global warming. Physics, thermodynamics, in which most importantly, its own unique characteristics.
Aumbry posted a good piece on mass hysteria. It certainly applies to the movement generally with its attendant calls to demonise those who disagree, and Gore trying to get a mass protest invasion going against coal mines, but interestingly, it also has the same quality of mass hypnosis which rationalises the irrational.
I was reminded of this aspect last evening watching a programme on Hitler's life, re OP too, he carefully planned finding a USP (unique selling proposition) to unite everyone in one cause. He decided on the Jews because he reasoned, no one really cared about them. How many here care about CO2 being the essential food of our life system? That we are carbon life forms? It is now thoroughly demonised. Put on poisons lists by governments around the world. And, heartbreakingly, turned into macabre ads teaching young children to fear it.
What could be more sweet than daddy reading a bedtime story to his little girl? "There was once a land where the weather was very, very strange. Scientists said it was being caused by too much CO2 and it was children of the land who would have to live with the horrible consequences. The grown ups discovered that over 40% of the CO2 was coming from ordinary things like keeping houses warm, which meant, if they could make less CO2, maybe, they could save the land for the children." The child asks - "Is there a happy ending?" Voice over, 'It's up to us how the story ends' with instruction to search online for the ads sponsers.
We know how mass hysteria, controlled hypnostism, galvanised millions into justifying the most psychotic behaviour. How long before our children think it perfectly normal to turn down the heating in their grandparents' houses?
I really am leaving this discussion now. This is insanity when intelligent and even scientists among us spend so much time rationalising that CO2 is capable of doing what it physically cannot.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I just knew it was a mistake to try and explain things again. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I just knew it was a mistake to try and explain things again.
The denial is so amazing and so insane that it shows that any attempt to discuss is fruitless because of a lack of a grasp of reality. I am boggled.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I just knew it was a mistake to try and explain things again.
We all weaken sometimes.
Myrrh provides a fascinating (and disturbing) glimpse into the anti-science CO2 disinformation campaign. There are certainly intelligent, well-informed sceptics around, but they do seem to be out-numbered by people with no grasp at all of the basics, who just automatically dispute everything the scientists say. You can see her repeating their standard catchphrases: "junk science", "it's not science" etc.
Myrrh, I know you've said (yet again) you're leaving the discussion, but for bystanders...
- The heat capacity of CO2 doesn't matter. Its ability to absorb and re-radiate IR light is what counts here.
- By analogy, polystyrene has a very low heat capacity, but it's a great insulator.
- The existence of the greenhouse effect is absolutely incontrovertible, and has been for over 100 years.
- Venus is only a little closer to the sun than the Earth, but its surface temperature is 467°C (872°F), thanks largely to a dense 96.5% CO2 atmosphere.
There is absolutely no doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The only argument is how much it'll raise temperatures.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
OK, one last post. I'll leave you to compare and for you to decide who is promoting pseudo-science.
quote:
Issue #2. What is a greenhouse gas?
The only true "greenhouse gas" then is air itself (oxygen and nitrogen). Gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide have gained the reputation of being "greenhouse gases" (GHGs) because they do react to radiation at various frequencies and thus gain heat directly from sunlight as well as via conduction. In laboratory tests this means that any enclosed space of air heats up more when there are more of these GHGs present in the space of the enclosure of the experiment. But there is no experiment possible that mimics the open atmosphere, by definition!
In the open atmosphere, the so-called GHGs actually work to increase the scattering of any solar heat, quite the opposite of what we are led to believe. Imagine an actual greenhouse with low humidity and another one with high humidity (any difference in level will prove the point). Actual experiments have proven that a greenhouse with lower humidity takes less energy to heat. This is obvious as water vapor, a celebrated GHG, quite literally absorbs energy without warming the air that's holding it - quite the opposite of what we are led to believe, yet again. Carbon dioxide does not have the ability to absorb energy like water vapor (or water or ice for that matter). See below for further information about absorption.
Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas; it does not absorb infrared nor near-infrared in a way that a sponge absorbs water and it does not transmit visible light - it is transparent to visible light.
Any energy that hits a carbon dioxide molecule will create, at the same instant, an equal and opposite emission spectrum, giving the casual observer the false illusion that energy has been "absorbed", whereas it has merely been scattered. Some of the energy that hits the carbon dioxide molecule may well increase the temperature of that molecule (depending on how the energy hits the alignment of the molecule), but that gained heat (theoretical only, can not be measured) will also be instantly dissipated by means of conduction with surrounding air molecules and at less than 400 parts in a million parts of air, those 400 carbon dioxide molecules would collectively need to reach several hundreds of degrees to warm the million parts of air by even a fraction of a degree, all at the same time, all over the world, all the time .... (all the while when the warmer air is rising and sharing its gained heat with ever higher altitude molecules of air and trace gases).
The Pseudo Science
Apart from the climate change alarmists, many prominent skeptical scientists also make statements which are opposite to how the atmosphere works in reality, whilst some even make up new laws of physics to justify their incorrect assessments. Global Warming? PLEASE, explain it to me
Carbon Dioxide is not physically capable of doing what you claim for it. PHYSICS.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"Barnabas, I take it all back".
I wish, for Myrrh's sake, that she could take at least some of it back. I wish it were possible for her to hear Cromwell at this point.
"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.".
[xposted with Myrrh - but after reading that link, even more approriate]
[ 03. December 2009, 07:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, one last post. I'll leave you to compare and for you to decide who is promoting pseudo-science.
Another last post? How many is that?
That article was bizarre Myrrh, but it's good to see where you've been getting this stuff from. At least its title was appropriate: "Global Warming? PLEASE, explain it to me as if I were a 5 year old!".
quote:
the physics involved in assessing a material's property will indicate that carbon dioxide, just like water vapor, is in fact a cooling agent [...], an aid in the scattering of energy.
Oh, it's the physics involved! It must be true. That'll be why it's so chilly on Venus then.
Myrrh, you have an unerring knack for tracking down lunatics and trusting them uncritically.
[ 03. December 2009, 07:43: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Alwyn, yes I am including those. Hurricanes are extreme events. They are loosely related to global warming, if at all. Broader effects will dominate.
Climate scientists say that climate change will increase the severity of hurricanes. They might be wrong. If they're wrong, I'd like to know why.
They acknowledge that surface sea temperature "is not the only influence on hurricane formation". They "conclude that both a natural cycle [...] and anthropogenic forcing could have made roughly equally large contributions to the warming of the tropical Atlantic over the past decades" - so they have already taken into account the 'broader effects' that you mentioned.
You say that climate change is "only loosely related... if at all" to hurricanes. I'd be interested in your evidence for that.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, one last post. I'll leave you to compare and for you to decide who is promoting pseudo-science.
quote:
Issue #2. What is a greenhouse gas?
...
In the open atmosphere, the so-called GHGs actually work to increase the scattering of any solar heat
...
Any energy that hits a carbon dioxide molecule will create, at the same instant, an equal and opposite emission spectrum,
...
So, what you are saying is that any Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere operates to scatter any heat. So any heat being radiated from the surface of the earth towards space is scattered by Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. So the Carbon Dioxide is acting rather like a blanket, preventing the heat from radiating from the surface of the earth out into space. This presumably leads to extra heating in the atmosphere, because that radiation cannot escape from the surface of the earth all the way out to space, because the extra Carbon Dioxide is scattering the heat. Any energy that comes from the Earth's surface and hits a Carbon Dioxide molecule will be scattered back towards the surface, keeping the surface of the Earth snuggly warm and cosy. But if there's too much Carbon Dioxide then, like having too many blankets on your bed, things get too hot. Oh dear. Perhaps we should stop pumping excess Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere then.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Carbon Dioxide is not physically capable of doing what you claim for it. PHYSICS.
Myrrh
From what I understand, Alan is a physicist. I'm not clear what your qualification is to claim he does not understand basic physics.
Maybe you could clarify that for me to establish whether you have any credibility or are just a ranting illiterate.
As an aside (and not speaking as someone who knows much about physics but has some knowledge of the basic scientific process) it should be possible to test the claims you have made in the post above. Carbon Dioxide is fairly abundant. One could design experiments to elevate the levels in real-life models and see what happens.
This is neither expensive nor difficult.
So you're seriously telling me that these simple experiments have never been done? You know this how?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Aumbry posted a good piece on mass hysteria. [...]
Ah, the familiar 'it's all unnecessary panic' argument. Yes, some panics are not grounded in reality - like the millenium bug.
But some aren't. Scientists warned that the levees in New Orleans needed work. People didn't listen. We know what happened next. Will we start listening now?
My point is about listening to scientists - I am not claiming that Hurricane Katrina was caused by climate change. This tragedy does illustrate how the infrastructure that we rely on is built on assumptions that will no longer apply if (as climate scientists predict) climate change makes hurricanes more severe:
"... engineers say the levees preventing this below-sea-level city from being turned into a swamp were built to withstand only Category 3 hurricanes. And officials have warned for years that a Category 4 could cause the levees to fail." (CNN)
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I was reminded of this aspect last evening watching a programme on Hitler's life, re OP too, he carefully planned finding a USP (unique selling proposition) to unite everyone in one cause. He decided on the Jews because he reasoned, no one really cared about them. How many here care about CO2 being the essential food of our life system?
So, in your worldview, CO2 is the Jews and the climate scientists are the Nazis? Is there any reason why we shouldn't invoke Godwin's Law?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
Well, what do you know, someone has actually studied the thermal properties and other basic properties of carbon dioxide.
Great. Nice to know that the physicists are not just working from Myrrh's eighteenth century textbook.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
I know Myrrh doesn't believe in answering Hell calls*, but for anyone else interested Alan has started one.
[* Or perhaps she doesn't accept there's any evidence they exist.]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Smart money seems to be discounting global warming.
That's untrue. The insurance industry is massive, smart, and gradually becoming very concerned.
Anything that scares policyholders into paying higher premiums will be welcomed by the Insurance Industry.
Anything? What if it is more powerful storms, more uncertain weather because of the extra energy in the system? Sounds a high price to pay if you gain a bit more in premiums but have to pay out billions for infrastructure damage from the weather.
The nature of insurance is that it calculates risk and then sets a premium. If anything the more potentially calamitous the nature of the hazard the better the business.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Alwyn, the article you linked on warming and hurricanes is out of date. The revised "climate change" version is here.
In 2005 predictions of massive disasters caused by global warming were all the rage. When these didn't pan out the models were changed to explain it. Keeping up with the ever changing talking points of the global warming crowd is hard, but it has to be done if one's a true believer.
For those who like to respond to repeated posts about the inapplicability of basic physics, there's this.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
I notice that Hansen has come out against cap and trade: quote:
"This is analagous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the middle ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what's happening," he said. "We've got the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual and then these developing countries who want money and that is what they can get through offsets [sold through the carbon markets]."
Ironic that he and the arch-deniers would agree on this point! I suspect not on the carbon tax idea though.
I've seen proposals for carbon taxes criticised for setting a invariant price on CO2, rather than a variable, market price. The argument goes that taxation may set it too low, and there'll always be the incentive for politicians to reduce it to win votes.
It seems an obvious stating point that the "externality" of the cost of climate change must be internalised somehow by the world economy. What do people think is the best way of achieving this? Is Hansen right? I can see cap and trade will be distorted in the same way globailisation distorts the price on trainers: all the power is with the sellers, who will drive the price down, when the control mechanism needs it to go up...
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Is Hansen right?
Dunno, but he's a scientist and IMO he should stick to science - not economics or activism.
There's a huge row going on between different environmental groups at the moment. Seasoned environmental policy types generally support cap-and-trade - it's better than nothing - while grassroots supporters tend to dislike it. Grist has become involved in the row.
So much for "global government" conspiracy theories. Greens start in-fighting at the drop of a hat.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
...In 2005 predictions of massive disasters caused by global warming were all the rage. When these didn't pan out the models were changed to explain it.
That's quite a claim, Jeff. Are you sure these predictions weren't all just the popular press? And which models were these and how were they changed?
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Alwyn, the article you linked on warming and hurricanes is out of date. The revised "climate change" version is here.
Intersting point about hurricanes. From what I understand, hurricanes were predicted to increase in intensity, but not frequency. Watt seems to make a valid point given the observed data: but that gives a bigger problem: there's a known relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity, so if that is going up, then something else must be preventing hurricanes from getting more intense!
In looking, I found this article by the now-infamous Kevin Trenberth, whose abstract reads: quote:
the observational hurricane record reveals large natural variability from El Niño and on multidecadal time scales, and that trends are therefore relatively small. However, sea surface temperatures are rising and atmospheric water vapor is increasing. These factors are potentially enhancing tropical convection, including thunderstorms, and the development of tropical storms. These changes are expected to increase hurricane intensity and rainfall, but the effect on hurricane numbers and tracks remains unclear.
Written in 2005, so no hindsight.
I think the hurricane connection may have been over-egged in the past, especially in the wake of Katrina. It may be true the GW will result in more intense hurricanes, but witha small trend and high inter-year variability, it'll be a long time before anyone can pick the trend from the noise. I'll leave it to better-informed people to say what the magnitude of the predicted effect is, as I have no idea.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
I think part of what causes people to be more skeptical about the climate models being produced is that this differs from how science "traditionally" impacts their conciousness.
Normally when a new paper is released, it will extend the body of knowledge. A new gene is reported, a new species. It is very rare that previous knowledge is invalidated (and when that happens it's often too obscure to get to the masses).
Most of science also doesn't have such an obvious impact. Sarah Palin quipped last year that science funding goes to areas "having little or nothing to do with the public good -- things like fruit fly research" despite the huge impacts research on fruit fly models have had on understanding of human system.
Climate models though are an area where each new model often (at least partially) invalidates the old model. They're also predictive in a manner that is easily understood, and often sensationalized. Each one is able to "predict the past" a bit better, and because of that they have different predictions for the future.
The result of this is an appearance of sloppy science, since the end product that Joe Average sees changes regularly. It's hard to explain this as a refinement, rather than sloppy design/modeling/science.
ISTM that way, at least.
Comments/rebuttals?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Sanityman, sea surface temperatures are important, but only in the areas where the hurricanes are forming (or moving).
Global temperature rises don't mean the temperature is rising everywhere, and It's not clear that they would rise in the important but narrow areas where the hurricanes would form.
The global warming crowd really shot themselves in the foot after Katrina by claiming it would only get worse. It hasn't and they look like idiots to many people.
Predictions were made based on theories. they didn't come true. Some would reject the theories?
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
