Go Back   Cruiser Log World Cruising & Sailing Forums > Cruising Forums > The Poop Deck
Cruiser Wiki Click Here to Login

Join Cruiser Log Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-27-2007, 05:21 AM   #21
Rear Admiral
 
Harbor_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 323
Default

Hi Lynx,

You were brave enough to ask clarification of the topic. If you ask, likely there are many more "lurking", reading and wondering something similar; what are we discussing here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx View Post
Are we talking about the weatherman being RIGHT???
I don't think so. In the very first post in this thread, Trim50 ask two questions:

1) Are humans responsible for global warming?

2) Do you believe humans can stop global warming?


His answers to his own questions are:

Q. Are humans responsible for global warming?

A. Yes, about 0.012%


He says Yes, but means NO! He means no, by the very small fraction he allows for human responsibility in the larger picture of the total reason(s) for Global Warming.

Q. Do you believe humans can stop global warming?

A. Not even a snow balls chance.
{In he*l}

He means NO!; not possible.

When he says:

"For those who believe they are well versed in this new religion,....."

He is not talking about worshiping gods or idols. He is referring to "of, or having a strong conviction, or belief in: what is the cause of global warming; man or other factors. This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with beliefs, especially those of strong opinion on the topic of global warming.

So far in this thread, he has not revealed what he thinks and believes is the cause of global warming. If he did, I missed it and have to re-read.

It appears to me, he will in time(**) , but first he is leading the readers through a series of debates, ready with a counter answer for most anything, one presents as proof, reasons, or opinion, supporting the statement: "Man is the main reason for global warming, or even makes a significant impact on global warming.

** Based on what he wrote in the first post:

< If this discussion goes in the direction that I have seen on a regular basis, everyone will learn something very worthwhile about our favorite topic on this web site. >

He also said:

< This should be interesting! Don't be shy...there are no wrong answers. >

So give it a whirl; but if you are of the school that believes, "Man is responsible for global warming, especially caused by CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), as a green house gas", be prepared to Spar (as in boxers practicing their sport).

I think he is having fun, by the ton, with this. It appears as his pet project; well at least sideline entertainment, when he is not busy supervising a team of engineers, inventing fuel cells that convert water to electricity, by extracting the H (hydrogen)(2 parts) from H2O (water), or busy rebuilding a very nice yacht as he prepares to go cruising (check out his BLOG to see it) (***).

It certainly is a lively debate.

That is my take on his post. If I am wrong, he will correct me. And that is just fine, as I have been wrong once before. Well OK than........ I lost count.

Back on your question, "Are we talking about the weatherman being RIGHT???"

Now that could make for another interesting and lively debate. If you feel so inclined, feel free to start a new topic on that subject. I will certainly take part in it as recently I became active in posting the Storm Warnings here on Cruiser Log.

Thanks for asking,

Jeff

P.S. This post perhaps has nothing to do with sailing, or at most very little; but he posted it in the correct Forum: The Poop Deck, where ALMOST anything else can be discussed (civilly), on a family web site.

*** EDITED TO ADD:

I failed to include the link to Trim's Blog:

http://www.sailblogs.com/member/trim50/
__________________

__________________
When in doubt, do the right thing.

Harbor_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 08:17 AM   #22
Admiral
 
Auzzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Home Port: Darwin
Vessel Name: Sandettie
Posts: 1,917
Default

Take heart Lynx, I thought your rhetorical question was funny

Cheese

David
__________________

__________________
"if at first you don't succeed....Redefine success"!


Auzzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 03:18 PM   #23
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Yep, I enjoyed the rhetorical as well.

Is Jeanne back yet!?
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 03:52 PM   #24
Rear Admiral
 
Harbor_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trim50 View Post
Yep, I enjoyed the rhetorical as well.
Trim and Oz,

Oh Man! Now I am laughing at myself; in hind site, I taking Lynx's question at face value, delicately crafting an entry-level explanation, bringing Lynx up to speed as to what this post is about.

In my own defense, I did state that I have been wrong once before. Now this makes it TWICE! YIKES! .....spiraling out of control here.

If nothing else, we got a good chuckle from my mis-read on the intent of the question.

Trim,

Sorry for the brief interlude in the middle of your post.

Back to "The TOPIC",

Jeff
__________________
When in doubt, do the right thing.

Harbor_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 04:18 PM   #25
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

I'm going to do something that most people don't do when trying to make a point. It seems that the Royal Society of Science has spoken...and it looks like it is official, I am a Royal Blasphemer.

Here is their publication:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=4085

The paper is obviously intended for the lay person without much scientific reference. They make the standard statement that "any" additional greenhouse gas "causes Global Warming", so who am I to argue against the Royal Scociety?

Take note:

Even the “Scientists” have some great “specific terms” for defining their position.

we cannot explain

not yet fully understood,

almost certainly

could lead

climate models

simulations

There are so many unknowns

they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed

This one still kills me! I will need to use this wording sometime. From the renowned authority on Global Warming IPCC

From the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group

"Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors".

In other words, we know what we want to find. We haven’t found it yet. However, we know it is somewhere in the error margins of measurements.

Funny thing is, one of my primary references for my argument about acid seas (still to come)comes from the Royal Society. One of my professors was a co-author. He doesn't think I'm a Royal Blasphemer...just a Royal Pain in the Arss.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 05:05 PM   #26
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanneP View Post
I am curious about your opinion of the theories put forth in that article by Mr. Caldeira. We know there is global warming, we know that CO[sub]2[/sub] levels have risen significantly, but where is the evidence that the excessive rise in CO[sub]2[/sub] in our atmosphere is being absorbed by the oceans? From reading your summary, to say that the oceans will eventually absorb the CO[sub]2[/sub] appears to me to be an unsubstantiated and unproven theory. The conclusions drawn seem to be that the excessive CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbed by the oceans will cause catastrophic changes in the ecology of the oceans. I assume you are not proposing that this paper is a refutation of the theories of global warming, but rather just another theory of what might happen with unrestrained burning of fossil fuels and release of such high levels of CO[sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere. Am I correct in that assumption?
1) Yes, it appears we are in a warming trend...no doubt at this point.

2) Yes, carbon dioxide level are rising...and faster than ever. Just wait till China kicks into high gear!

3) Atmospheric gases are always in a solubility equilibrium with the oceans. Henry's Law, 1st year Chem 101, no theory needed. It's a law now after all.

Henry's Law

The solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas. The most common solvent is water.

4) You are correct, I am in no way claiming that Caldeira et al. refutes any theories of global warming. It is only an introduction to what I believe to be the real issue.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2007, 07:37 PM   #27
moneypit
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ernst Beck has published a highly controversial paper about the chemical measurements of CO2 is the past two centuries with chemical measurements and the problems thereof:

Beck, E-G, 2007; 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods; Energy & Environment, Vol 18 No. 2, 2007

ABSTRACT

More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection.


http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

This guy is German to debunk the idea that it is only Americans rejecting IPCC.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2007, 05:29 PM   #28
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

(Sorry, I haven't figured out how to get subscripts and superscripts to work) (Painfully fixed!)

And now what I view as the real problem with man made carbon dioxide. Hopefully someone will find this interesting….

So how does carbon dioxide affect the acidity of the oceans and what are the consequences?

The acidity or pH of an aqueous solution is a measure of the concentration of H+ ions in the solution, with low pH meaning high H+ concentration. The scale is between 1 and 14. A pH 0-6 is acidic, from pH 8-14 is basic, and pH 7 is neutral, between the two extremes, so it is neither acidic nor basic (alkaline). The more H+ ions that are present, the more acidic the product will be. The scale is logarithmic, meaning that each pH unit has 10 times more H+ ions than the one above it. This is important to remember, because what appear to be small numerical changes in pH, are actually substantial changes in ion concentration.

What’s the link between CO[sub]2[/sub] and the death of coral reefs?

Acidifying the ocean is particularly detrimental to organisms that secrete shell material made of CaCO[sub]3[/sub], such as coral reefs and a type of phytoplankton called coccolithophorids [Kleypas et al., 1999]. Carbon dioxide, CO[sub]2[/sub], combines with water, H[sub]2[/sub]O, to form carbonic acid, H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub]. As an acid H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub] releases H+ ions into solution to form HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] and CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] and therefore, adding CO[sub]2[/sub] to water causes the pH to drop. Most of the carbon in seawater is in the form of HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup], while the concentrations of CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] and dissolved CO[sub]2[/sub], are one and two orders of magnitude lower. The equilibrium reaction for CO[sub]2[/sub], in seawater is given by:

CO[sub]2[/sub] + CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] + H[sub]2[/sub]O ↔ 2 HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup]

CO[sub]2[/sub] and CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] are inversely related to each other. In other words, if the concentration of one increases, the other decreases by nearly an equal amount. Therefore, increasing the acidity of the ocean through the addition of carbon dioxide, decreases the concentration of CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] ions.

Coral reefs are built from limestone, CaCO[sub]3[/sub], by the reaction;

Ca[sub]2[/sub][sup]+[/sup] + CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] ↔ CaCO[sub]3[/sub].

Acidifying the ocean decreases the concentration of CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] ions, which shifts the equilibrium toward the left, dissolving CaCO[sub]3[/sub].

The oceans have a tremendous buffering capacity as long as the rate of CO[sub]2[/sub] increase is slow, on the order of 1000's of years. However, when the increase occurs over a period of 5 -10 years, the buffering mechanism associate with deep sea currents can not compensate for what is happening in the shallow waters. Therefore, acidification of the shallow waters goes unbuffered causing a run away imbalance in natural chemistry. When this man made effect is coupled with natural global warming, major segments of the shallow water biological food chain will be irreversibly damaged and possibly lost in a very short period of time...maybe as fast as 10 years.

OK, my final point and reason for starting this thread.

The Earth is an enormous equilibrium machine. It has experienced far, far, worse things than the pitiful nibbling of humans at the outer microns of its surface. It will always establish equilibrium with whatever perturbation affects its operation. The magnificence of the balancing act is achieved entirely through the universal solvent, water. The oceans will eventually absorb every chemical, gas and solid we produce during our stay or until we exhaust all the convenient sources of carbon. Along the way however, we will soon wake to the fact that our influence on metastable life of essential biological systems has disappeared, and with it, the ability to recover biological equilibrium. The Earth will heat and cool, with or without our help.

My recommendation...sail the world and see for yourself. I plan to.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 03:05 PM   #29
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Here is a paper very worthwhile reading if you still believe in human glabal warming.

CO2_effects_on_temperature.pdf

If someone actually reads it, I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 11:28 PM   #30
Admiral
 
Auzzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Home Port: Darwin
Vessel Name: Sandettie
Posts: 1,917
Default

So....as global warming continues we may be faced with rises in sea levels to the extent that some countries may disappear beneath the ocean's surface.

This may be twisted logic, and forever paint me as a bit of a prawn, but how much of the rise in level would be attributed to expansion as the water becomes warmer; and how much to the effects of the addition of meltwater?

If you watch your glass of iced water as the ice melts, the water level will not increase. Indeed it will fall..almost imperceptibly, but on a large scale such as is the case in oceans, the fall would be easily measureable.

Therefore any rise in sea levels from meltwater, would have to come from ice which is above the existing water level and which would first have to overcome the lowering of the waterlevel resulting from the melting of submerged ice.

Add to this the retention in the atmosphere of a vastly increased amount of water molecules, (as I understand warmer air absorbs and holds more vapour which can be read as increased humidity), and it seems to me that the balance will not change so significantly as to cause the next great inundation as predicted by those who make money from justifying such predictions.

So the questions I ask are: Is the water level issue of genuine concern to low lying countries? Are well meaning greenies perpetrating a con? Do I need to alter the boot line on my boat? Am I visionary, or an idiot?

Cheese.

David.
__________________
"if at first you don't succeed....Redefine success"!


Auzzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 12:10 AM   #31
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzzee View Post
Do I need to alter the boot line on my boat? Am I visionary, or an idiot?

Cheese.

David.
You are truly a visionary!

According to NASA:

Sea levels crept up about 20 centimeters during the twentieth century. Most of the rise happened because water expands as it warms, though melting mountain glaciers also contributed to the change. Sea levels are predicted to go up between 0.18 and 0.59 meters over the next century, though the increase could be greater if ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt more quickly than predicted.

As much as 10 percent of the world’s population lives in coastal regions where the elevation is less than 10 meters above sea level. These communities will become increasingly prone to storm damage and flooding as sea levels rise. Among the most vulnerable countries is Bangladesh, which has low elevation, a high population density, and is one of the world’s poorest nations. Red areas indicate populations that live less than 10 meters above sea level, while green areas show the population density in areas with an elevation greater than 10 meters.

Click image for larger version

Name:	Bangladesh.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	149.8 KB
ID:	130

If we were a smart bunch, we would start speculating land for new marinas. However, there is a big difference between 0.59 meters and 10 meters...and a century is a bit longer than I intend to be around.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 12:26 AM   #32
Admiral
 
Auzzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Home Port: Darwin
Vessel Name: Sandettie
Posts: 1,917
Default

I've got a mate who is Bangladeshi....he's not in the least bit dense.

David.
__________________
"if at first you don't succeed....Redefine success"!


Auzzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 12:51 AM   #33
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzzee View Post
I've got a mate who is Bangladeshi....he's not in the least bit dense.

David.
That one took me a few seconds

I often wonder if we will be able to get our money back from the climatologists 10 or 20 years from now when the climate starts to cool again.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 01:01 AM   #34
Admiral
 
Auzzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Home Port: Darwin
Vessel Name: Sandettie
Posts: 1,917
Default

Of course we will!

It was only last week I received a compensation cheque from the Y2K foundation.

David
__________________
"if at first you don't succeed....Redefine success"!


Auzzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 01:20 AM   #35
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 11:17 AM   #36
Commander
 
Peter Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 138
Default

Sitting where I am in the corner quietly sipping my pint and listening to but not understanding much more than about 10% of this discussion, I cannot help but think that the underlying problem has been "defined" by those who have a political, religious or social axe to grind.

If we accept the greater truth that, unless we're in Hollywood, there's probably nothing that we can do to influence significantly the development of the cosmos, our universe or the earths core, the problem reduces to an assessment of whether what we (can) do now is good or bad for us. If it's good, let's continue, if it's bad let's see if we can't make some changes for the better.

Personally, I see every reason to reduce/moderate our demands on life to address our needs rather than feeding our marketing drive insecurities and lack of self worth. Simplistic? Maybe but Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs provides a pretty good starting point for this with the present distribution of resources and wealth/power being the major contributors.

The real question for me now is can the political powers of the last few centuries change their positioning and help the emerging powers to adopt a more realistic view of what we all actually need?

Another pint, please!
__________________
Peter Owen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 05:35 PM   #37
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Peter,

What I find truly disturbing is the world wide hysteria and how all kinds of political and commercial entities are attaching themselves to the Global Warming Band Wagon. This link is to a site here in California which airs a commercial every couple of hours telling everyone that "Global Warming isn't just a fact, it's a choice"...and speaking to future generations that "We knew how to stop global warming, but our generation chose not to".

In the end of the advertisement, you find that this is actually a commercial to sell compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs). Guilt sells…history tells us it sells for a long long time. Apparently we know how to stop global warming...but because we didn't buy CFL or new Econs, we flooded homes and rivers for our children's generation.

http://www.fypower.org/

Watch the add here:

http://www.fypower.org/res/ads/

Can you believe this garbage is allowed to be air'd?
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 08:06 PM   #38
Admiral
 
Nausikaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,619
Default

I can't claim to understand what is going on. Does anybody?

What I do know is that we had great summers the past three years with lots of sun and hot weather................and global warming was blamed for this

This year we have had one of the worst summers I can recall with wind, rain, cold, more rain and even more rain........................and global warming is blamed for this.

Now, I may be a bit denser than the aforementioned Bangladeshi but I just don't get it. Either global warming makes it warmer and drier here or it makes it colder and wetter. Surely it can't be both?



Aye

Stephen
__________________
Yacht NAUSIKAA | Call Sign: 2AJH2




WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU DID SOMETHING FOR THE FIRST TIME?

www.nausikaa.org.uk

= Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Lithuania
Nausikaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 08:43 PM   #39
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Actually it can.

I have no doubt that the climate is warming and most likely a large portion of the planet's ice will melt just as it has done in the past before humans were here to spew that dreadful carbon dioxide into the air. With the warming process will come significant changes in weather patterns typically resulting in more rain during normal dry months and hot dry periods during normal cold months.

The issue at hand, in my opinion, is the manipulation of human guilt for political and commercial purposes. Never before have we seen such a powerful global issue being spun by political media machines with cutting precision. Carbon dioxide is a life giving gas and yet it is now classified by most humanity in equal standing with carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons as most humans have no idea what the difference is between these species of gas molecules. Most people don’t even realize that we exhale carbon dioxide and therefore contribute to the evil known as the “carbon cycle.” Just for comparison, if all the cars on the planet burned 1 gallon of gasoline each day, it would only equate to 3x the carbon dioxide emission produced by humans breathing while at rest.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 12:55 AM   #40
Admiral
 
MMNETSEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,067
Default

After reading all the way through the topic - I agree : Global Warming is caused by Hot Air
__________________

__________________
MMNETSEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Grib ~ Free Access To Global Weather Data. Eclipse General Weather Discussion 8 10-13-2010 01:58 AM
Cruising And Religion Trim50 General Cruising Forum 5 04-09-2007 03:18 PM
What kind of boat will take me global thinking General Cruising Forum 5 07-12-2005 10:01 PM

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
×