Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by superrat
 


Thank you, but as you can see the AGW religious fanatics are doing their best to keep their religion alive, even if they have to lie and twist things... which is exactly what the AGW scammers have been doing, among other dirty tactics....

Unfortunately you can see the AGW fanatics are all over the "Fragile Earth forum".... They are obviously trying their best to salvage their religion which is going down in flames by the minute...


[edit on 2-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
humans have an effect on global warming alright but its not a problem of green house gases its caused by the energy that is pumped into the ionosphere by HAARP



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


No idea who you're talking about, but for the record, I worship plate tectonics and alcohol distillation



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

No idea who you're talking about, but for the record, I worship plate tectonics and alcohol distillation


Well, maybe we can add AGW to what you worship, after all even when scientists like Lindzen, Gray, Landsea and many others were saying loud and clear that the IPCC had been politicizing Climate Change, and when many of the IPCC scientists themselves, like Landsea and others, were trying to tell people like you that those who are in control of the IPCC were not listening to their own arguments, and they were rewritting the science of Climate Change to push for their agendas people like you didn't want to listen to them despite the fact that there was, and still is more than enough evidence that showed AGW to be nothing more than a lie...

Now that the scammers were caught, and they even had to admit they used false information to push for their AGW agendas, still people like you want to believe in AGW, in one way or another....you seem to want to keep it alive and I wonder why?...



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

So, ignoring the wilfully ignorant, the general opinion is that G&T is the suckiest paper in recent memory?


Nah. There's worse.

To be fair, there are some that have presented the Climate Deniers side well and with good data (no, I can't remember which ones. I do remember noting some that I wanted to double check but had very solid references and good writing and did not howl about a selected strawman (CO2 and/or Evyl Conspiratorial Scientists) but went after specific problems that could lead to large errors in modeling. Some of those earlier articles were taken very seriously and used to correct and adjust flaws in later models.

I very seldom see papers (well, abstracts) like that promoted by the Climate Deniers. They tend to prefer ones that focus on Carbon Dioxide as a sole or primary mechanism (which is, frankly, lame, because after some of the excellent critiques and papers about CO2 being the only thing to blame, models were changed) and papers that lambast science (like the one several years ago when someone claimed (untruthfully) that 90% of the scientists writing papers on climate were against AGW.) In addition, by the time they end up over here, they may have acquired titles that are misleading.

Of course, the really influential ones don't have titles like "Climate Science Is A Hoax!" but rather things like "Uncertainty, Complexity and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Change Modelling: Are GCMs the Best Tools?" (that one looked interesting.)

But, of course, that would lead to a rational discussion instead of a list of "AGW is a religion!" and similar accusations by people whose concept of a religion is "any firmly held opinion that disagrees with mine."

One of these days we're going to see Toyota car owners branded as a religion or Terry Pratchett fans branded as a religious cult under this loose definition. I can hardly wait to be "outed" as a Terry Pratchett cultist.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Well, maybe we can add AGW to what you worship, after all even when scientists like Lindzen, Gray, Landsea and many others were saying loud and clear that the IPCC had been politicizing Climate Change, and when many of the IPCC scientists themselves, like Landsea and others, were trying to tell people like you that those who are in control of the IPCC were not listening to their own arguments, and they were rewritting the science of Climate Change to push for their agendas people like you didn't want to listen to them despite the fact that there was, and still is more than enough evidence that showed AGW to be nothing more than a lie...


You can - as I believe the scientists you list do (and certianly most sceptics do) - accept aspects of AGW yet still question the way it has been politicised and the more extreme predictions coming from some circles.

It's not all or nothing.

Scepticism does not mean denial.

Acceptance that many different factors affect climate, some of them influenenced by human activity, does not mean you think Antarctica will melt by 2100

In the same way, believing there is life elsewhere in the universe does not mean you believe there are aliens on the Moon, on numerous youtube videos, in the Whitehouse and down the chip shop.....

You have faith that no human activity has any effect on climate whatsoever. I know the Earth is not flat.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

One of these days we're going to see Toyota car owners branded as a religion or Terry Pratchett fans branded as a religious cult under this loose definition. I can hardly wait to be "outed" as a Terry Pratchett cultist.


Douglas Adams is God. Terry is just a Disciple



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
If you have 14 rooms and switch on a light bulb in one room than the temperature of that room will increase (well, it would, before we banned incandescent bulb) and as a result the average temperature of the mansion would have also increased. Thus you prove AGW


Ah, I see you had used this analogy in another thread. I replied to you regarding a post like this in this thread. I didn't get a reply, so I'll post it here. You said...

Originally posted by Essan
Lots of little things here and there add up over time .....

If you have a house with 1,000 rooms in it and turn on a heater in 1 room, will the average temp of the house increase after 100 years?


Well, no. It may rise slightly, but there will be no "runaway" effect causing the whole house to continue to warm till it burns to ashes in a fiery cataclysm (unless you left the heater next to a flammable substance
). Much of the heat will dissipate through the house, leaving an imperceptible rise in temperature in the remainder of the house. This is because there are many more variables than the one heat source alone.

Heat will dissipate through the roof and windows. And the oustside temperature will have a considerable effect on the temperature inside. So if it gets colder outside, the temperature could likewise drop inside. Also there, may be some unknown feedback witch causes the temperature to stabilise, rather than continue to warm. This is what happens in reality.

Sure if you were oblivious (or misleading) to the other variables, and wanted to promote the lovely warmth of your house, you could. You could say "we know heaters produce heat, and there is a heater. We've known this for over a hundred years. Therefore, the whole house will continue to be toasty and warm, for all time".
But in reality, there are variables whitch haven't been taken into account. Therefore, the seemingly obvious conclusion is incorrect.

But if you wanted to further prove that the one heater in a massive house will keep the whole thing really warm for over 100 years, how would you do it?

Make a computer model!!

You could make a computer model, tell the model that when you turn a heater on, it will continue to heat the whole house. You might forget to add the variable of the windows, which will lose heat, but that doesn't matter. You already know what you are trying to prove. You then go and run your computer model, and Voila!! There's your proof that your house will always continue to be warm.

Now you can charge people who want to stay in your mansion in advance, saying that it is neccessary to ensure warmth in the house for over 100 years. Too bad that when they get there, the one heater isn't actually heating the whole house the way the computer model said it would. But that's OK, you've already got their money.

So, does that prove what AGW is about?


[edit on 3-2-2010 by Curious and Concerned]



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Well, no. It may rise slightly, but there will be no "runaway" effect causing the whole house to continue to warm till it burns to ashes in a fiery cataclysm


I wouldn't expect it to - and not sure why any one else would?

I would just expect a small, but measureable, underlying warming. All else being equal.

Why wouldn't you?

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Essan]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Why is it that the AGW believers keep wanting to claim the Earth is like a house, or like a greenhouse which are closed systems?....

Much of Earth's energy, and heat dissipates into space, and Earth is not closed by some magical globe that the AGW believers think exists...

While GHGs for the most part remain within the Earth's atmosphere and are cycled within the Earth the radiation they "retain for a while" does not remain "trapped".... If this was so then it would be as hot at night as during the mornings...

The two scientists from the OP even show that Earth, and it's atmosphere do not act as a greenhouse/closed system, and that is is the lack of air circulation in a greenhouse which causes the increased temperatures from the temperatures outside the greenhouse.

Let's hope the other AGW believers have already caught up with what the two scientists are saying instead of trying to twist what they are saying because they don't want to stop believing in their AGW religion.

Many scientists, even climatologist have been pointing to the fact that the AGW claims are based more on faith, which are based on false assumptions, than on science.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
...........
You have faith that no human activity has any effect on climate whatsoever. I know the Earth is not flat.


No Essan...I have no faith on this topic, I have knowledge that the warming by CO2, and other trace gases is so small that it is neglegible... The ones relying on faith are the AGW proponents/believers who make assupmtions like "all else being equal in the atmosphere as on a closed system" when there is no such thing... the Earth and it's atmosphere is not equal on ANYTHING to a house...

Even most of the AGW believers NOW claim that they believe the Earth and it's atmosphere are an open system, when their belief is based on the claim that GHGs act as a greenhouse which is a closed system....

Of course now that their masters are being shown to be scammers the AGW believers are flip flopping, once again, and claiming they always knew the Earth is an open system...


Essan, now you seem to be alone in your belief that the Earth's atmosphere and GHGs act as a closed system.... so it is obvious you are the one still believing "the Earth is flat"...


Even when you have been shown that most of the warming has ocurred in remote areas where there are no cities, or large amounts of humans hence 'pollution" is not the cause for the "warming", you still want to "believe mankind's activities must have an effect on global climate"....



[edit on 4-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
I would just expect a small, but measureable, underlying warming. All else being equal.

Why wouldn't you?


I explained this already. In reality, all else would NOT be equal.

What if the door was closed? The heat won't get a chance to warm the rest of the house before it has dissipated out the _ How do you know the heat is going to make it through all the rooms before dissipating outside? The heater could be upstairs, and have reduced effectiveness in lower rooms. An unexpected cold winter could make the house colder than it was before the heater was turned on.

So you can't just say the whole house will be warmer because a heater produces heat. It might work out that way in a computer model if you don't know all the variables. Sure if you put a heater in a controlled environment like a small, insulated room in a laboratory, it will warm the room. But in the real world it isn't that simple.

You see, there are many variables that you can not just assume and then call it proof. Yet that is what many do when relying on practically useless computer models (or flimsy analogies).



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You people are just amazing... you twist what is being said time and again, and the fact that those who like you want to believe in AGW, which even scientists say is nothing more a religion shows that you people will just try to applaud each other even when you are telling lies, and twisting what is being said...


You do not understand the science involved, you refuse to understand the science involved, and yet, you keep going. You're like the energizer bunny of ignorance. Grats on post count though.

Second, do you know what a religion is? I assure you, climate study certainly isn't one of them.


The effects of greenhouse gases has been labeled ""greenhouse effect" is it not?.... and a greenhouse is a closed system... that is the context in which these scientists are saying this claim is fictitious.....


Then they are arguing against a strawman. As has been explained earlier in the thread, a greenhouse prevents convection, while "greenhouse gasses" reflect radiation. The term "greenhouse effect" simply means that the gasses involved make the place warm up. Again, THE GROUNDHOG ISN'T A HOG OMG!


They do not say ANYWHERE "Earth is a closed system"... and BTW i put words on caps because some people obviously can't understand what they are reading so i try to get their attention...but still such people try to sound as if they were smart twisting what is being said...


If you're being literalistic and pointing out there is no direct quote, then no. However every iota of their claim is based off the earth being a closed system.


STOP trying to twist what they say, and show PROOF that they say "earth is a closed system".... which they don't... and since you haven't been able to show ANYWHERE the lie you made up, it is obvious that you people will continue to believe in this scam...just because it has become your RELIGION....


Except that two people have quoted exactly - and the title is pretty blatant about it as well. Again if you're expecting a quote of these two scientists saying "We, (Scientist 1's name) and (Scientist 2's name) hereby do declare that the earth is a closed system." then you're out of luck. However, even a high school student who's taken an entry-level physics course can look at this article and see that this is, in fact, the basis of their argument.

Several people on this thread have pointed this silliness out to you.

If that's not enough, these two Wild And Crazy Guys are claiming that climate change theory posits that CO2 radiates heat. I dunno how deep your ignorance of the subject goes, but I would hope even you could go "Yeeeeah, that's a goofy claim"


Not only that, but the fact that you people can only respond with insults shows that this is nothing but an "emotional" topic for you all...


It's not insulting to tell you that you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about. it's a simple statement of fact that you are ignorant about hte subject at hand. In fact you are willfully ignorant which, in my book, is just about the same as "stupid". Again, not an insult so much as a statement of fact gleaned from observational data


Over a dozen people have explained to you multiple times how these two mathematicians are just plain-out wrong. They're wrong coming out of the gate, they build their argument on being wrong, they come to the wrong conclusions for their own data, and they are just... wrong. You refuse to acknowledge this, instead gyrating like a dying fish in an effort to defend something that surely even you know is complete bunk.

it would seem that you're the one with the emotional investment.


If you all are using the original article to try to twist what these scientists are saying, let's actually see what the article says...again...



............
From this short tutorial, the scientists go on to show the vast difference in physical laws between real greenhouses and Earths atmosphere. They expose the fallacies in accepted definitions of greenhouse effect from several popular sources. "It is not trapped infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse but the suppression of air cooling." Gerlich and Tscheuschner explain Earths atmosphere does not function in the same way, nor does it function in the way global-warming alarmists describe as "transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation."

Then they make the point that climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The German scientists illustrate how the idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle. There would have to be a heat pump mechanism in perpetual motion in the atmosphere to transfer heat from a low to a high temperature reservoir, and such a machine cannot exist. They call the greenhouse effect a fictitious mechanism. "The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic [man-made] climate changes has no physical basis."

Throughout the paper the authors show that those who advocate the greenhouse gas theory use faulty calculations and guesstimates to arrive at their catastrophic conjectures, and though Gerlich and Tscheuschner make no specific accusation, they point out how many respected scientists have blamed alarmists for intentional fraud rather than mere scientific error. They also reveal that the idea of a greenhouse effect is modern and never mentioned in any fundamental work of thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. According to them, it is impossible to replicate forecasts made by climate modelers' computer simulations with any known scientific formulae.
.........


First of all G&T clearly specify that the Earth's atmosphere and GHGs do not act as a greenhouse, and anyone with ANY brains knows a greenhouse is a closed system, yet you all want to keep claiming they say the Earth is a closed system?...


Actually the greenhouse isn't a closed system, since it's receiving light and heat from an external source. One could make the case for an indoor greenhouse, such as that massive marijuana "grow cave" that was busted in Tennessee a while back, but your standard glass-and-frame greenhouse is simply a humid solar oven.

However, you will note again that nowhere is it claimed that "greenhouse" gasses function in an identical manner to an actual greenhouse, just that they have the same net effect of holding heat in an area. Second... your own excerpt once again points to how these guys are calling the earth a closed system. You CAN read, right?


Second of all, they have already and clearly stated Earth's atmosphere and greenhouses do not act as a greenhouse, and again anyone with any intelligence knows a greenhouse is a closed system, but then they continue and state how the second law of thermodynamics is violated by GCMs because if GHGs acted as a greenhouse the system would deteriorate... yet you all want to twist what they clearly are saying and want to claimg they are saying the completely oposite to what they are really saying?....


...Maybe you can't. Tragic.


And then you all, those who believe in the lies by "foxmonkey" (whatever his name) want to claim you are intelligent.....


Hardly lies. It's pretty basic science.


Enough of this nonsense by people who obviously see AGW as nothing more than a religion...


[edit on 2-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]


I see you continued posting after this. What gives? False promises and all.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Why is it that the AGW believers keep wanting to claim the Earth is like a house, or like a greenhouse which are closed systems?....

Much of Earth's energy, and heat dissipates into space, and Earth is not closed by some magical globe that the AGW believers think exists...

While GHGs for the most part remain within the Earth's atmosphere and are cycled within the Earth the radiation they "retain for a while" does not remain "trapped".... If this was so then it would be as hot at night as during the mornings...

The two scientists from the OP even show that Earth, and it's atmosphere do not act as a greenhouse/closed system, and that is is the lack of air circulation in a greenhouse which causes the increased temperatures from the temperatures outside the greenhouse.

Let's hope the other AGW believers have already caught up with what the two scientists are saying instead of trying to twist what they are saying because they don't want to stop believing in their AGW religion.

Many scientists, even climatologist have been pointing to the fact that the AGW claims are based more on faith, which are based on false assumptions, than on science.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]


It's sad to see that you're just like right on the verge of understanding what you're talking about, but not quite. Seriously.

You are mocking the claims of those of us who acknowledge the reality of AGW, without realizing that the specific claims you are mocking are ones made up by charlatans who are denying the reality (why? Dunno. Usually it's a check from exxon, but I got no evidence one way or the other, maybe they're just Wild And Crazy Guys).

Y'know what? The claims being made by the deniers ARE laughable. Let's take your post here one part at a time.


Why is it that the AGW believers keep wanting to claim the Earth is like a house, or like a greenhouse which are closed systems?


We don't. This is denialist lie #1 in our list. If the earth were a closed system, global warming wouldn't be a problem at all, since we would not be receiving heat from the nuclear fireball of destruction floating ninety-three million miles away.


Much of Earth's energy, and heat dissipates into space, and Earth is not closed by some magical globe that the AGW believers think exists...


Again, this is not one of our claims. And yes, much of the heat reflected and radiated by the earth is either dissipated into cooler regions of the earth, into the oceans, or into space.

What gasses like CO2 and methane and sulfur dioxide do is slow the dissipation process. They're heavy gasses, so when abundant, the atmosphere is thickened, and heat travels more slowly through it. The heat still dissipates - it just does so much slower, resulting in an increase of surface and atmospheric temperatures.


While GHGs for the most part remain within the Earth's atmosphere and are cycled within the Earth the radiation they "retain for a while" does not remain "trapped".... If this was so then it would be as hot at night as during the mornings...


The heat is retained only for a while, but as it dissipates more slowly, more of that heat is retained in any given period. And nights are cooler not because of heat shooting off into space but simply due to earth's convection coupled with your hemisphere not being in a direct source of heat (the sun). However night have been increasing in temperature as well as days, due to the heat trap effect. Convection can only carry heat so far, after all. it's still dissipating more slowly.


The two scientists from the OP even show that Earth, and it's atmosphere do not act as a greenhouse/closed system, and that is is the lack of air circulation in a greenhouse which causes the increased temperatures from the temperatures outside the greenhouse.


The two scientists demonstrate a remarkable ability to make up malarkey and then defeat it with even more malarkey. I would suggest they spend some time actually studying their subject matter, rather than just arguing semantics after happy hour.


Let's hope the other AGW believers have already caught up with what the two scientists are saying instead of trying to twist what they are saying because they don't want to stop believing in their AGW religion.


I understand what they're saying just fine, which is how i can definitely say that they are wrong.

I'm still not getting this "religion" bit of yours. What is it with folks on the conservative bent who try to insult anything they dislike by calling it "religion" anyway?


Many scientists, even climatologist have been pointing to the fact that the AGW claims are based more on faith, which are based on false assumptions, than on science.


What you're labeling as "faith" is actually reasoned extrapolation - I presume you're talking about the fellow who's claiming that the prediction about Himalaya's glaciers have no basis?

Science is touchy about making predictions, as it's an inherently conservative subject - if there is no evidence for a claim, it is generally regarded as false. Ergo predicting things is on shaky scientific ground by definition.

However an application of common sense can still work. If ice melts when temperatures are above freezing, and glacial regions end up with above-freezing temperatures year 'round, it stands to reason... that the glaciers would melt, right? it stands to reason that snow doesn't generally fall in above-freezing temperatures, meaning these glaciers would probably not getting restored. Since most of India and Pakistan's reliable water sources are produced by glacial runoff, one can guess that melted glaciers would eventually pose a problem for these states.

However since the temperatures aren't at the melting point in the Himalayas yet, 100% accurate predictions can't be made. Melting glaciers and warmer temperatures might result in more rain in the highlands, keeping the rivers flowing even without glaciers. We don't know, because it's not happened.

It's not bad science - but it's admittedly not exactly good science, either.

On the other hand, the science that shows rising concentrations of CO2 and methane and all these other gasses in the atmosphere has an insulating heat-trap effect? That's good, solid science.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Why is it that the AGW believers keep wanting to claim the Earth is like a house, or like a greenhouse which are closed systems?....


That's a nice big straw man you've built there




Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Essan
...........
You have faith that no human activity has any effect on climate whatsoever. I know the Earth is not flat.


No Essan...I have no faith on this topic, I have knowledge that the warming by CO2, and other trace gases is so small that it is neglegible...


Okay, that goes against current atmospheric physics. But anyway, that's only one bit of anthropogenic warming - there are many other ways we cause warming, such as the effects of black carbon, contrails and landuse change. We also cause cooling through industrial aerosols.

You however refute the idea that humans have any effect whatsoever on climate. Why are you so sure? Or is it just what you want to believe?

Do you even accept local climatic effects caused, for example, by cities affecting local rainfall patterns? The drying up of the Aral Sea? Deforestation?

And if you accept these, and that therefore human activity affects local climate all over the planet, how can you argue that when put together all these local effects have no effect at all?

If one place on the planet is warmer due to human activity, and there is no equal and opposite cooling elsewhere, then the net effect if AGW. Whatever your god may tell you.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I suppose Mercury/Venus defies the basic laws of physics as well.


This slow rate, combined with mercury's nearness to the sun, causes a daytime temperature of more than 400 °C. In the nightime, heat radiates away quickly and the temperature may be as low as -200 °C"
hypertextbook.com...


Mercury is the closest planet to the sun(36 million miles), thus it gets more solar radiation per square meter. It gets up to 400 degrees C.


The surface temperature of Venus is highly uniform, about 462 °C (about 736 K/864 °F)

hypertextbook.com...

Venus is the second closest planet from the sun(67 million miles). The inverse square law states that as the distance from a light source doubles, its brightness reduces by a factor of 4 (double the radius of a sphere and its surface area quadruples). Thus, Venus is getting roughly a quarter of light but its average temp is higher than the peak temp of Mercury.

Now lets look at the constitution of the atmospheres of the two planets.


Mercury's primordial atmosphere dissipated shortly after the planet's formation because of both the low level of gravity on the planet, the high temperature, and the effects of the solar wind. However, at present there are traces of a very tenuous atmosphere containing hydrogen, helium, oxygen, sodium, calcium, potassium and water vapor, with a combined pressure level poorly known:

en.wikipedia.org...

What about the composition of the atmosphere of Venus? 97% Carbon Dioxide.
en.wikipedia.org...

Hence, atmospheric conditions have an effect on temperature.

Let me also add that thermodynamically speaking, Earth is more of a closed system than a greenhouse. In a greehouse, heat can enter and escape through two main methods. Radiation can enter and exit and heat can be conducted(transfer of kinetic energy from one particle to another through physical impact) through the walls and to the outside atmosphere. Convection does not occur as air won't move between the barrier(ideally). On Earth, there is only one way for heat to enter or escape and that is radiation. Convection doesn't occur because air doesn't really escape the gravity of Earth and so hot/cold particles can't mix with cold/hot particles outside of it. The atmosphere is protected from the solar winds by the magnetosphere. Conduction doesn't occur because particles in the atmosphere and other bodies in space don't physically touch. The only thing that really happens is radiation (disregarding rare cosmic rays which technically are nucleons with mass that carry kinetic energy into the atmosphere).





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join