It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:52 PM
You are forgetting that energy is conserved. Billions of years of energy has hit Earth from the sun and plants have been absorbing some of that energy for billions of years. When we burn things like oil and coal, we are transforming the matter into energy. Now, when you burn that matter to release the energy, you actually get a very low efficiency rate. For example, when car engines burn gas, only about 30% of the energy is actually able to be harnessed into forward thrust. That left over 70% has to be going somewhere, and it is turning into heat and going back into the atmosphere. So, when we burn things we are transforming a good deal of that energy, which has been collected for a billion years, into heat.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

How about you give us ONE research paper that proves atmospheric CO2 absorbs as much radiation as it is CLAIMED by the AGW proponents?...


Here you go: it's a pdf file.. That's from 1979, but as it's generally accepted to be the starting point for the quantification debate, it should be a good point to start your education on this.

Oh, and regardless of the existing debate on the amount of radiative forcing, there is NO debate on the existence of radiative forcing.

When you've finished with that article, you might want to try this one:
dealing with the effects of solar cycles and CRF. Looked to me like it was right up your alley.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Animal

Actually if you payed attention to what I was saying you would realize it is the OPPOSITE of your above assertion hat environmentalists strive for...

I have payed attention and sorry to say your movement has become nothing more than a red herring and a big business at the cost of human suffering, and even lives.

Your movement want to boycott oil from which not only gas is produced but plastic, rubber etc is also produced. Now-a-days there wouldn't be ANY healthcare without plastic, which comes from?.... oil....

From syringes, to artificial hearts or LVAD which are made out of metal, plastic, ceramic, and other materials, to other organs, machines, and containers which are made from oil ALL of these advances in medicine wouldn't exist without oil and other natural resources which your people want to boycott.

Originally posted by Animal
Yawn. . .Nope, not even close, just more of the same old fanatical opposition. . .

Yawn all you like, it just shows your fanatical oposition, and your blind faith in a RELIGION. Environmentalism is no more a good cause.

Originally posted by Animal

OH MY GOD, REALLY?!?! Well that just puts a nail in the old 'lets take care of the environment coffin' now doesn't it?

Your attitude shows that you are not really worried about the environment. Most of your people are young teenagers, or young adults who just want an excuse to yell and shout meanwhile you ironically waste more "oil" as you keep protesting....

Originally posted by Animal

If you say it it must be true, right?

That shows you haven't been paying attention....

Australian TV Exposes Stranded Polar Bear Global Warming Hoax

Remember that wonderful picture of stranded polar bears on an ice floe that were used by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore to demonstrate how dire the man-made global warming issue is?

Well, ABC television in Australia, on a show called “Media Watch,” recently debunked the entire issue (video available here, h/t NB member dscott).

It turns out -- as NewBuster Jake Gontesky reported on March 20 -- the picture was taken in August, “when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.”

The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy:

They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.

Denis Simard of Environment Canada agreed:

You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.

How delicious. Think this kind of broadcast would ever happen in America?

This fact has been all over the news when it came out, and even on the internet, but you must have been in one of those barges/boats wasting thousands of gallons of diesel meanwhile yelling and protesting against off shore drilling....

Originally posted by Animal

Greenpeace is much like Al Gore to you and yours, a straw-man.

so now Greenpeace and the entire GREEN movement is a strawman?....

Originally posted by Animal
New to me, how about a link to these 'leaders' . . .

Realy new to you?... The Hollywood crowd comes up with remakes of movies like "the day the Earth stood still" in which ENVIRONMENTALISTS present the idea that some alien presence comes to "save the Earth from mankind, and that it must be destroyed"...

Yes, ideas are presented through movies too in case you didn't know, more so to the young and inexperienced kids, and adults, and they are constantly indoctrinated by these ideas that "mankind is evil, Earth is good" which MOST, if not ALL environmentalists believe in..

Environmentalists/Liberals/PRogressives/Socialists/Communists present this same idea. Meanwhile the SOcialists/Communists claim "capitalism and all it's evil must cease to exist to save the Earth", the other groups not only claim Capitalism is the problem but mankind also...

Several years back "Environmental Extremism" was only accepted by a few, but now-a-days more and more environmentalists/Liberals/Progressives etc claim that "depopulation control at any cost must occur to save Earth, and the rest of the people".

We have had several threads in these forums which show the claims of many leaders of environmental groups, and even leaders of nations, like the UK, and even the OBama administration think it is neccessary to "depopulate the world" and "limit the amount of kids a couple can have to one" among other things. If you don't know about any of this you must have been living under a rock.

Originally posted by Animal
Well like i already said, if you said it, it must be true.

Nice response....

Originally posted by Animal
The most pathetic, weak, ignorant, and spun out argument against protecting hte environment EVER told.

No, the most pathetic, weak, illogical, and spun argument is the stance of environmentalists like you who don't give a damn about the Earth or mankind. All you care about is having power over other people...

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by vox2442

Wow...funny that you mention that particular scientist because his equations have been used to corroborate that in the TRoposphere WATER VAPOR accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 accounts for 2% - 5% along other gases.... But those are some figures the AGWers don't like to show...

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:37 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Hey there. First I totally agree that the idea of man made global warming is ridiculous but..... I see one giant glaring mistake in your calculations that needs to be addressed. Now I haven't read through to see if this has been yet or not but just trying to help get it right! The density of air you used for your calculations was the average density for air at sea level. Because this is entirely different in the troposphere the rest of the calculations are incorrect. I believe you would need to average the density of all air and plug that number in there to get it right. Good job overall though and thanks!

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:34 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Excuse me,

You asked a question. I answered you. What the hell does your last response have to do with ANYTHING I've mentioned in this thread?

Yes, water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Very good. Congratulations on coming up to speed. These things are not revelations, no matter how large your font is.

Now, take the calculations, which you apparently accept as true, and apply them to the CO2 in the OP.

Or, if you prefer, just start ranting about random crap again. Either way.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:47 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
THANK YOU! For the polar bear find! Freakin' Al Gore and his bullsh1t bears. Every time I see the clip I wanna puke.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:53 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

It would appear that China is not the energy utopia after all.

True, but they are actively doing something about it. It is difficult while they are growing so fast.

Here is a link describing their efforts.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:24 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Actually numbers do lie when you use the wrong ones in the wrong way.

Here's another calculation for you: The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

The comments from that article lead to another set of 'simplified' calculations from a former AGW skeptic and critic, Mike Alexander. His calculations lead him to a completely different conclusion than yours.

You would do well to review these two items before redoing your calculations as you promised. You might find that Mike has done your work for you.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by mikelee

A Kelvin is -457.87 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nope, 1 degree kelvin is 9/5 of a degree Farenheit. Water (fresh)freezes at 32 degrees F and 0 deg C, which is 273 deg K.
Absolute 0 (that is, the almost total absence of all molecular motion or a quantum mechanical zero point energy) is 0 Kelvin, -273.15 Centigrade, and -459.67 on the Farenheit or Rankine scale You were almost correct (missed it by .2 deg F) if you were meaning to say 0 deg Kelvin is -457.87 degrees Farenheit.
Science trivia of the day: The kjndling point of paper is 451 degrees Farenheit, hence Ray Brabury's Farenheit 451

[edit on 4-12-2009 by 4nsicphd]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by wx4caster
reply to post by TheRedneck

to further clarify for all on kelvin and celcius-

zero celcius is the freezing point of water.

zero kelvin is the temperature at wich all molecular motion stops.

the incrementation is the same.

Oops, not ALL molecular motion. Just so little motion that no energy from motion can be transferred out of the system. It's not all motion because it is impossible to fully decouple the system from the universe.
it's for that reason that the LHC has aimed for 1.9 degrees Kelvin and not 0. You can't quite get to zero. because of certain quantum effects. But absolute 0 is a 0 energy quantum mechanical state. And really wierd things, like Bose-Einstein condensates and super-conductivity, happen when you get close.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

However, I do not agree there is a problem with the climate.

Yes, we have seen some warming in recent times, ..

We also know that global temperatures tended to rise and fall during historical times, even within the human timeframe.

Apologies for chopping up your qoute, I aiming at finding the crux of your position. Essentially "natural cycle"?

It's a common position among those that disbelieve the man made Global Warming argument....and honestly a more respectable position than those obtusely claiming that there is no variation or phenomena occuring.

Some things you might want to consider...

How do we know the current temperature fluxuation is caused by humans?

First..We know that we are releasing compunds into the atomosphere that contribute to Global Warming...scientists can even discern how much is man made and how much is natural. Right now about 25% of CO2 in the atomospher is man made.

Variations in the temperature of the Sun, the most obvious suspect for our current warming trend if it was "natural" has been ruled out. Sattalites have been monitoring the sun for 40 years and the "brightening" we would expect to correlate with our temperature variation is simply not there.

No forcing factor has been identified to support the idea of a "natural cycle", No variations in the suns brightness. There is no evidence for Milankovitch cycles that caused the ice ages, none, while industrialization and associated emmisions science fits the model consistently.

Our current trend is demonstrating temperature variations that are increasing at a rate of 10 times faster than any natural cycle recorded.

Milankovitch Cycles...

If the Earth has survived earlier warming episodes, what is so bad about this one even if it is not natural? The problem is that our civilization—where cities are located, where we grow food, where we get fresh water—is all based on the climate we have experienced for the last 10,000 years. So are many of the world’s ecosystems. If the climate changes, many of those things will suddenly find themselves in the wrong place.

The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. This is clearly not natural cycle. The earths natural cycles, if human industrial output had not been involved would have us near or slight below thermal equilibrium, possibly slightly cooling.

In other words, if were were in the natural cycle without human influence, the forcing levels would likely be around 0W/m2 to -0.1W/m2. We are currently experiencing a positive forcing of around 3.6 to 3.8W/m2 and a human induced negative forcing of around 2W/m2. The resultant forcing, depending on current levels and the Schwabe cycle is around +1.6W/m2 above natural cycle as estimated.

Also...I am lacking math, but would be interested where your calculations differ from these...
Climate Forcing


posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The specific heat capacity of water by volume is 4.186 J/cm³·°K[6] at 25°C. Thus, in order to raise the temperature of the oceans by a single degree Kelvin:

4.186 J/cm³·°K = 4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K

4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K · 1,347,000,000 km³
= 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ/°K

The specific heat capacity of water is indeed 4.1855 J/(g·K), as you have stated. However, it is estimated that there are about 35 grams of dissolved salts (mostly in the form of Na+ and Cl- ions) per litre of sea water. The presence of these ions significantly reduces the specific heat capacity of water. The specific heat capacity of seawater is closer to 3.993 J/(g·K). Please amend your calculations.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by TheProfessional]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by TheRedneck

I will admit TheRedneck that I don't understand global warming physics, so your maths simply did not make sense to me.

The part I don't understand is this: How does more CO2 cause global warming?

First, please help me rule something out. Is it the thermal insulation properties of CO2 that is causing the increase in warming? I imagine not since even if it were a perfect insulator as a gas it only takes up a small fraction of the total gasses in the atmosphere. So the thermal insulation of CO2 is then mathematically insignificant, correct?

So what then is it about CO2 that causes an insulating effect? Apparently you refer to something about CO2 interacting with photons to create heat, but I can't quite understand what that is exactly. CO2 is not an optically clear gas and therefore absorbs light? Is that what it is?

OK, I'll try. I wish I knew my audience (mainly you) so I could tailor this reply. I apologize if the explanation seems condescending or aimed at too elementary an audience. Anyway, here goes.
The sun sends out light because it's hot, about 6,000 K at the chromosphere. About 40% of what the sun emits we can see. That means about 60% is in parts of the electromagnetic spectrum like ultraviolet (use your sunscreen) or x-ray or even radio. The electromagnetic spectrum is the name we use for emissions mediated (connected with) photons, which are massless (which is why they can travel at the speed of light) particles or waves or particle-waves. Google "Double slit experiment" to save me several pages. Although photons have no mass, they do have energy. The energy depends on the frequency of the photon.The energy E equals Planck's Constant, which since physicists love using letters for stuff, is called h (or actually h-bar, because the h has a little line going through the upright) times the frequency of the photon, represented by v (except it really isn't v, it's the lower case Greek letter Upsolon.) Still with me?
Anyway, stuff (like you and me and CO2 andH2CO3) has a property called an absorption spectrum. That means electromagnetic radiation (photons) of certain frequencies are absorbed, some are reflected, and some just go right through. For instance, your AM radio waves can bounce off the atmosphere, which is why on some days you might pick up WBZ in Boston or WLS in Chicago. FM radio "waves" pass right through. They are called "line of sight" transmissions.
It just so happens that CO2 absorbs photons in the infrared part of the spectrum. OK, time for a really bad and scientifically close but not quite there analogy. When McDonalds wants to keep your fries warm, they put them under an infrared light, that is, a light designed to emit photons in the infrared part of the spectrum. And it works.
Mrthane (CH4), and water vapor (H2O(g)) also absorb in the infrared spectrum. Oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) don't. So, these photons pass right on through.
Also involved is that while the EMR coming in from the sun is short wave, the emissions from the earth, because it's warm but not really hot like the sun, are longer wave, lower frequency, exactly the sort of emissions CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses love to trap.
And now for a little pretty useless trivia. In the same year that Einstein came up with Special Relativity (1905), he also wrote a little paper about bouncing photons off of metal. It was , "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light." It proposed the idea of energy quanta. Shoot photons onto a metal. Guess what? The metal shoots electrons back. But only if you use the right frequency. Intensity doesn't matter. Only frequency. Hello, quantum mechani
Most people think Einstein won the Nobel for his Relativity theory. Nope. He won for the photoelectric effect

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by truthquest

Thanks, that pretty much explains everything I was wondering about.

In your equations then, how do you determine the percent chance of light that will hit a CO2 atom? It seems you are saying in your OP that if CO2 was say is 2% of all gasses in the atmosphere that it would intecept 2% of the light. Is that correct?

In my opinion, given your description of how global warming works, the way to determine how much heat will be captured would be to determine:
- The area (from a cross-section-wise perspective) of an individual CO2 atom.
- The area within that area which if hit would result in absorption of a photon... I would guess 100% but don't know the physics.
- How many CO2 atoms there are per area unit in the atmosphere.
So, by multiplying the cross-section area of CO2 by the number of atoms per unit area you can calculate what the maximum area is of CO2 per unit area that would be that is vulnerable to interaction with light rays. Using a statistical function (not sure which one) you could cancel out CO2 atoms who's area overlaps.

The next step would then be to determine the area (again as a cross-section perspective) of a photon. Since I don't really know too much about thermodynamics there is probably no point in me going on much further but the point is my idea would be to match up the area of the photon.

Conceptually dead wrong. Read Feynman's "Quantum Electrodynamics" to see why. They only allow 4000 characters in a post and it would take far, far more to explain photon - electron interactions, much less the photon - hadron interactions involved. Feynman wrote a book on those too.
FOI, do you mean elastic cross section or total inelastic cross section?And at what energy level? It has only been measured at 100 to 500 eV.
And given the wave-particle duality of a photon, it is utterly meaningless to talk about a cross section.
And you ask how many CO2 atoms there are in a certain area. Absolutely none, zero, nada. CO2 is a molecule, a zero dipole linear molecule. Not an atom. An atom is the fundamental unit of an element. CO2 has one carbon atom and two oxygen atems, bound together covalently.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by 4nsicphd]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by 4nsicphd

although they spew enormous amounts of CO2, and SO2, which combines with O2 and H2 to form H2SO4

I just want to make a clarification to that. From the wording, it could be believed that you are saying carbon dioxide (CO2) is an ingredient in the manufacture of sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which it is not. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the main ingredient in atmospheric production of sulfuric acid; carbon dioxide does not enter into that equation.

I know you didn't intend for it to come across in that way, but it could to someone without chemical knowledge.

Kudos on your explanations, nonetheless.

You are absolutely right.CO2 has nothing to do with acid rain. Except that it is an ingredient in Coca-Cola, which, when shaken and poured on a windshield, works great to clean off the acid rain residue.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by TheProfessional

Please amend your calculations.

I'll be happy to. I need to know a couple things first, however.
  1. You state your values in J/g·°K, whereas I was calculating based on volume in J/cm³·°K. As I am sure you are aware, the difference in density of seawater as compared to 'fresh' water will offset the differences in value (although quite possibly not completely), so this will have to be converted into volumetric units instead of mass units for the new value to be applicable. Was the use of mass units instead of volumetric units correct, or a typo?

  2. The values I have been using came, admittedly, from Wikipedia and are therefore subject to correction. However, this source agrees with the value I have commonly used for some time, which is the value for volumetric specific heat capacity of 'fresh' water of 4.186 J/cm³·°K, and mass-based specific heat capacity of 4.183 J/g·°K. Can you provide a link to this new value for verification?

Thank you for the additional information. I look forward to your reply so this re-calculation can be included in the new calcs I am performing now, or at least can be corrected in the original calcs.


[edit on 12/4/2009 by TheRedneck]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

I hope you didn't take offense at that correction. It is easy sometimes when explaining things in an elementary sense to include a connotation that was both unwanted and incorrect.

I must say, those last three posts were impressive explanations! I salute you, sir, on your knowledge. The only correction I can make is that carbon dioxide molecules only absorb a small portion of the infrared spectrum, primarily associated with two narrow bands and a 'shoulder' (which some sources also show as simply a wider band). Thus, carbon dioxide will not absorb all of the infrared energy it encounters; only the portion of that energy within these bands.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have three posts to go back and star.


posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by TheProfessional

Please amend your calculations.

I'll be happy to. I need to know a couple things first, however.
  1. You state your values in J/g·°K, whereas I was calculating based on volume in J/cm³·°K. As I am sure you are aware, the difference in density of seawater as compared to 'fresh' water will offset the differences in value (although quite possibly not completely), so this will have to be converted into volumetric units instead of mass units for the new value to be applicable. Was the use of mass units instead of volumetric units correct, or a typo?

  2. The values I have been using came, admittedly, from Wikipedia and are therefore subject to correction. However, this source agrees with the value I have commonly used for some time, which is the value for volumetric specific heat capacity of 'fresh' water of 4.186 J/cm³·°K, and mass-based specific heat capacity of 4.183 J/g·°K. Can you provide a link to this new value for verification?

Thank you for the additional information. I look forward to your reply so this re-calculation can be included in the new calcs I am performing now, or at least can be corrected in the original calcs.


[edit on 12/4/2009 by TheRedneck]

This source uses g/kg and assesses the physical properties of seawater at salinity 35 g kg-1 (the average salinity of seawater).

Just an additional note, the term freshwater, as applied in your source, excludes seawater and is limited to naturally occurring water with low concentrations of dissolved salts.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by TheProfessional]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by TheProfessional

Thank you. I will now recalculate as you suggested.

I previously calculated the heat capacity of the oceans as 5.639·10^21 kJ/°K. In doing so, I used the value of 4.186 J/cm³·°K. You suggested the correct value is 3.993 J/g·°K, and supplied a source. I therefore use this new value.

To place the value in the correct units requires converting from grams to cubic centimeters based on the density of seawater. The density of seawater at sea level (which is the most conservative value) as given in this source is approximately 1030 kg/m³, which is equal to 1.030 g/cm³.

3.993 J/g·°K · 1.030 g/cm³ = 4.113 J/cm³·°K

This is equal to 4.113·10^12 kJ/km³·°K

Now, this value is multiplied by the volume of the oceans to obtain the total energy capacity per degree Kelvin temperature rise for the oceans:

4.113·10^12 kJ/km³·°K · 1.347·10^9 km³ = 5.540·10^21 kJ/°K

This compares to the previous result of 5.639·10^21 kJ/°K.

Adding in the total energy requirement of the troposphere (10.56·10^15 kJ/°K) gives the same result, 5.540·10^21 kJ/°K, when carried out to 4 decimal places.

This means the ratio of energy required to energy available must be recalculated as well. The new ratio is:

5.540·10^21 kJ/°K ÷ 55.26·10^18 kJ/°K = 100.3

This compares with the previous result of 102.03.

The final result is that the maximum temperature change over 100 years predicted by these calculations would be 0.01 °K.

Identical result, therefore the change is insignificant.

Incidentally, I am aware that the density of seawater increases as the depth of the ocean increases. An increase in density will correlate to an increase in volumetric specific heat capacity. This will mean an increase in the total amount of heat required, and thus a smaller resulting temperature change. In short, any attempt to include this variability will decrease the final resulting maximum temperature difference.

Also, this brings up a very important point: the hiding of raw data. TheProfessional linked me to his source, here, which would appear to be reliable. However, if one looks at the density table, one will see units specified thus:

(ρ/kg m^−3 − 1000)*
with the further notation of

* In oceanographical work these data are always expressed in terms of 1000(S − 1) where S is the density relative to water at 4 °C. Values for this can be obtained by adding 0.03 to the values in the table.

Accurate? Probably. Accessible? Comprehendable?

Density is a ratio of mass to volume. There is no need, and certainly no justification IMHO to hide values with obscure units when the units of grams, kilograms, liters, and cubic centimeters are well-known and certainly applicable to oceanography.

I do not consider this a conspiracy in itself, however it serves to emphasize a conspiracy. All calculations are based on raw information such as that in this site, and therefore the applicability of such calculations to actuality are as obscure as the initial values. By similarly concealing their raw data amidst a veritable maze of 'jargon' and conclusions without proper explanations, climatologists have presented an incomplete picture of their processes and methods used to determine their results. My calculations have been criticized as simplified; perhaps they are. But they are here, openly presented in their entirety, with a complete explanation of how they were arrived at and where every piece of data came from as well as why it was used.

Now, I ask all of you who still believe in anthropogenic Global Warming: can you say the same for the results published by the IPCC?


[edit on 12/4/2009 by TheRedneck]

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in