[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

• • • The Mandela Effect • • • - miamizsun - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:05am
 
Bono has some explaining to do... - islander - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:02am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:59am
 
Who is that guy? - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:25am
 
Wordle - daily game - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:15am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:07am
 
COVID-19 - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:04am
 
Trump - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:03am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:02am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 7:57am
 
Race in America - black321 - Jan 19, 2022 - 6:42am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jan 19, 2022 - 6:14am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 19, 2022 - 5:30am
 
Britain - Red_Dragon - Jan 19, 2022 - 4:57am
 
Things You Thought Today - Coaxial - Jan 19, 2022 - 4:26am
 
Russia - miamizsun - Jan 19, 2022 - 4:25am
 
What happened to Radio Paradise? - ScottN - Jan 18, 2022 - 4:10pm
 
If not RP, what are you listening to right now? - black321 - Jan 18, 2022 - 3:10pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - GeneP59 - Jan 18, 2022 - 2:36pm
 
New Music - Red_Dragon - Jan 18, 2022 - 2:35pm
 
Beer - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:59pm
 
A lot of 'obscure' repetition lately? - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:49pm
 
Pictures that are total crap - Manbird - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:44pm
 
Germany - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:33pm
 
Coffee - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 10:20am
 
Bowie fans, check this out - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 10:10am
 
Floyd forum - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 9:37am
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 9:32am
 
North Korea - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:57am
 
How's the weather? - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:42am
 
Italy - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:41am
 
Patrick Watson should play on RP - jsricher - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:39am
 
Food Democracy - miamizsun - Jan 18, 2022 - 4:16am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - miamizsun - Jan 18, 2022 - 3:57am
 
The Obituary Page - kurtster - Jan 17, 2022 - 8:30pm
 
Thank you, RP! - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 17, 2022 - 8:16pm
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Jan 17, 2022 - 1:30pm
 
Something for my fellow hippies. - haresfur - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:22pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:20pm
 
World Music - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 17, 2022 - 11:07am
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Jan 17, 2022 - 10:00am
 
Sunrise, Sunset - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 17, 2022 - 6:50am
 
Religion - kurtster - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:12am
 
What Did You See Today? - Steely_D - Jan 16, 2022 - 8:26pm
 
volcano! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 16, 2022 - 11:56am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Jan 15, 2022 - 10:22pm
 
Climate Change - helenofjoy - Jan 15, 2022 - 1:21pm
 
See This Film - islander - Jan 15, 2022 - 11:34am
 
Florida - Red_Dragon - Jan 15, 2022 - 9:28am
 
Hard Core Trivia - Manbird - Jan 14, 2022 - 4:51pm
 
Yes - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 2:48pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Jan 14, 2022 - 2:30pm
 
New RP listener - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 1:36pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Jan 14, 2022 - 12:44pm
 
Think About It - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 11:45am
 
Media Matters - Red_Dragon - Jan 14, 2022 - 11:38am
 
let it spin!! - oldviolin - Jan 14, 2022 - 10:46am
 
Is Wikipedia Objective? - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 10:17am
 
Remembering the Good Old Days - Steely_D - Jan 14, 2022 - 8:23am
 
Ukraine - black321 - Jan 14, 2022 - 8:11am
 
OUR CATS!! - sunybuny - Jan 14, 2022 - 5:52am
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Jan 14, 2022 - 5:01am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Lazy8 - Jan 13, 2022 - 9:46pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jan 13, 2022 - 9:44pm
 
Automotive Lust - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2022 - 3:12pm
 
Play the Blues - rhahl - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:30am
 
Terrorist Watch! - Ohmsen - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:26am
 
WTF??!! - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:12am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - fractalv - Jan 12, 2022 - 8:16pm
 
What the hell OV? - Manbird - Jan 12, 2022 - 3:39pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2022 - 5:36am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - miamizsun - Jan 12, 2022 - 5:00am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Jan 11, 2022 - 6:52pm
 
• • • Things Magicians Exclaim • • •  - Red_Dragon - Jan 11, 2022 - 6:37pm
 
Word of the Day - miamizsun - Jan 11, 2022 - 5:19pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Chaos Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Post to this Topic
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 26, 2021 - 12:54pm

 kurtster wrote:

Well, I've seen no citation where either of them actually said that in those exact words.  Cows produce methane which is non-toxic to humans, carbon dioxide is toxic - so the "garage' experiment is not a valid test.  Pollution and poisonous fumes are not the same things.  Closer to what they (and others) have said is that methane released worldwide by cows is estimated to be comparable to the amount of pollution released by cars and trucks, and that methane is more potent when it comes to warming the planet.  

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 26, 2021 - 12:33pm

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 25, 2015 - 6:36am

 haresfur wrote:

The CO2 in the oceans has quite insignificant conversion back to oxygen in the atmosphere. So RD's statement is sort of right. But if you regrew all the forests you could sequester about as much carbon from the atmosphere that was lost through deforestation. The trouble is that won't do much for all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. It could help in the short term until fossil fuels are replaced but it's a one-off gain. 

 I'm glad to hear you are concerned about the carbon absorbed by the oceans though {#Clap}. As your article points out, the decrease in ocean pH is very serious. Reversing the effect is a very slow process. And it merely slows the rate of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, it doesn't prevent it. 

 
I saw this earlier.  Yes, I have posted several years ago about my concerns with the pH levels while discussing the Pacific Gyre Garbage Patch.

Its all interrelated and this is the kind of pollution we should be focusing on more than CO2.  Its effects will be quicker and more devastating than the effects of CO2.  We will upset the thermal circulation of the oceans and the food chains which also have an effect on the ocean's circulation system with this kind of pollution faster and more permanently than CO2.

obtw, iffen we're so concerned about releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, why do we still allow carbonated beverages ?  {#Mrgreen}

 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 25, 2015 - 6:23am

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Thanks, a good read.  Please do and go read the update to the article.

Here's some more to help understand the big picture.  

ocean conveyor belt

I used to know these things by heart, but since I had no one to talk to about them, they have been forgotten.  Known that the Gulf Stream has been weakening for at least 20 years or so, but only because these things interest me.

A couple of remembered factoids just because ...

It take 25,000 years for Lake Michigan to completely flush itself while Lake Erie take only 5 years.  The exchange rate of Lake Erie makes me think of it as more like a river than a lake, fwiw.

Please remember, I do not say that there is no change in climate happening.  I just disagree with the reasons why and what we can and should do about it.  My approach is to find ways to deal with it and adapt to it, rather than seek ways to reverse it, which by my understanding, is simply impossible and a waste of time and money.  


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2015 - 5:06am

Everything is FINE. Just FINE.
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 14, 2015 - 1:23am

 kurtster wrote:
Red_Dragon wrote:
Let's see....

Humanity has been systematically deforesting (and in the process burning a lot of that wood) the planet for oh, 10,000 years, give or take. Trees are a - if not the - primary means by which carbon is re-absorbed and converted into something breathable and stable in the atmosphere - not to mention that in so doing go a long way toward moderating global temperatures.. Also, we've been burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasingly astounding rate for the past 300 years or so, dumping even more carbon into the atmosphere. All the scientific evidence we have tells us that the temperature of the planet is rising at an ever-increasing rate. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I can do grade-school math.

Either pretty much every climate scientist on the planet is in on some vast, left-wing conspiracy and all those oil company execs are telling the god's-honest truth, or we'd better wake. The. Fuck. Up.

  
Sorry buddy ...  Yes, trees and the lack of have had profound effects on certain civilizations and their collapse (because they burned the trees for fuel and cut them all down and ran out of fuel) , but the CO2 part that you allude to regarding the impact of trees on the CO2 in the atmosphere is not true.  I can find plenty more, but this is good for openers.  It is all about the oceans.

 Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
July 15, 2004

 
The CO2 in the oceans has quite insignificant conversion back to oxygen in the atmosphere. So RD's statement is sort of right. But if you regrew all the forests you could sequester about as much carbon from the atmosphere that was lost through deforestation. The trouble is that won't do much for all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. It could help in the short term until fossil fuels are replaced but it's a one-off gain. 

 I'm glad to hear you are concerned about the carbon absorbed by the oceans though {#Clap}. As your article points out, the decrease in ocean pH is very serious. Reversing the effect is a very slow process. And it merely slows the rate of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, it doesn't prevent it. 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2015 - 8:42pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Let's see....

Humanity has been systematically deforesting (and in the process burning a lot of that wood) the planet for oh, 10,000 years, give or take. Trees are a - if not the - primary means by which carbon is re-absorbed and converted into something breathable and stable in the atmosphere - not to mention that in so doing go a long way toward moderating global temperatures.. Also, we've been burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasingly astounding rate for the past 300 years or so, dumping even more carbon into the atmosphere. All the scientific evidence we have tells us that the temperature of the planet is rising at an ever-increasing rate. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I can do grade-school math.

Either pretty much every climate scientist on the planet is in on some vast, left-wing conspiracy and all those oil company execs are telling the god's-honest truth, or we'd better wake. The. Fuck. Up.

 
Sorry buddy ...  Yes, trees and the lack of have had profound effects on certain civilizations and their collapse (because they burned the trees for fuel and cut them all down and ran out of fuel) , but the CO2 part that you allude to regarding the impact of trees on the CO2 in the atmosphere is not true.  I can find plenty more, but this is good for openers.  It is all about the oceans.

 Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
July 15, 2004




haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2015 - 4:33pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Let's see....

Humanity has been systematically deforesting (and in the process burning a lot of that wood) the planet for oh, 10,000 years, give or take. Trees are a - if not the - primary means by which carbon is re-absorbed and converted into something breathable and stable in the atmosphere - not to mention that in so doing go a long way toward moderating global temperatures.. Also, we've been burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasingly astounding rate for the past 300 years or so, dumping even more carbon into the atmosphere. All the scientific evidence we have tells us that the temperature of the planet is rising at an ever-increasing rate. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I can do grade-school math.

Either pretty much every climate scientist on the planet is in on some vast, left-wing conspiracy and all those oil company execs are telling the god's-honest truth, or we'd better wake. The. Fuck. Up.

 
Add to this that we understand the mechanism where CO2 increases the heat absorbed/trapped by the atmosphere. It is basic physics and conservation of energy stuff. Someone could argue that the global climate models are imperfect representations of reality but there is no mechanism known to explain why the climate wouldn't be heating up. Even if you invoke some undocumented changes in solar radiation, the CO2 will still change the temperature relative to what it would be without massive greenhouse gas emissions.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some coding or input errors in a climate model. I would be surprised if it made significant differences to the output since the model is calibrated and verified against subsequent measurements. And don't forget the descriptions of climate change are based on a suite of independent models. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Oct 13, 2015 - 4:12pm

Let's see....

Humanity has been systematically deforesting (and in the process burning a lot of that wood) the planet for oh, 10,000 years, give or take. Trees are a - if not the - primary means by which carbon is re-absorbed and converted into something breathable and stable in the atmosphere - not to mention that in so doing go a long way toward moderating global temperatures.. Also, we've been burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasingly astounding rate for the past 300 years or so, dumping even more carbon into the atmosphere. All the scientific evidence we have tells us that the temperature of the planet is rising at an ever-increasing rate. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I can do grade-school math.

Either pretty much every climate scientist on the planet is in on some vast, left-wing conspiracy and all those oil company execs are telling the god's-honest truth, or we'd better wake. The. Fuck. Up.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2015 - 3:51pm

 marko86 wrote:


If this goes the way these normally go, then nothing will actually happen. You notice there is nothing of substance in the article other then he discovered some devastating math error in the climate model, then what happens is people spread this around as though this is some kind of proof. Odds are nothing was submitted to anyone for peer review. But hey, we shall see. Till then, there is nothing to talk about. The climate models, if anything have low balled the effects of climate change, but they are getting better as they accumulate more data and knowledge.

Regarding your statement ", just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied" , Do read Erik X excellent post on the matter , The current massive El Nino going on now, will likely shatter Global surface temperatures records this year.

 
In the article:

When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.
“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”

You heard it here first!

 So yes, there will be a peer reviewing of his work.  

I did read it.  Wish he linked his titles, but no worries.

I thoroughly understand the oceans and their impact.  I fell in love with the ocean when I got my first surfboard at age 12 and it has only grown since.  Just so you know as far as where I am coming from, I did attend Fla Inst of Tech in Melbourne, Fla majoring in Oceanography / Marine Geology / waves and erosion, yada ...  So its not a passing interest.  Been aware of the boy and the girl for nearly 50 years.  They have a huge impact on my local weather up here by Lake Erie.  El Nino = very mild winter here.  La Nina = brutal cold and snowy.  Then this area has unique weather found in only 5 areas on earth, Lake Effect Snow.  In California, El Nino brings the Pineapple Express, massive torrential rainstorms and gully washers in the winters.  This one could be the drought buster they have been needing.  Problem there is Calif has piss poor water storage issues.  But moving on.

In 7th grade science, I was educated that the 20th Century was a huge weather anomaly in earth's climate with record breaking calm and uneventful weather.  A lot of it could be explained by long term solar cycles.  Come the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st, we would see a return to highly volatile weather and climate extremes.  Ok, so what I'm seeing is this come true, as I was educated and came to know based upon my studies and involvement with the ocean.

The ocean is the key to life as we know it.  It is a living organism.  It is the greatest force of nature, period, end of story.  By the time I was 16, having made the daily 10 minute walk to the beach in the OC, I realized how puny and insignificant man is in the big picture.  I have read both sides of the argument.  However, the opinions I express are my own based upon 50 years of study and observation, not some one else's that I have read somewhere with.  I'm more concerned about polluting the ocean than with the air and especially if the air pollution in question is something that I create and exhale on a regular basis.  The first thing listed on my interests here is the ocean.

I'd love to keep going and explain why I find the difference between the atmospheric temps and the surface temps in this discussion less significant than the article Ex posted, but only if anyone wants to listen.  I boor people enough here as it is.  I doubt that anyone wants to go as deep as I can take it.  I have a life long passion on the subject.  This is not something that I recently became aware of only because some politician is telling me to be scared to death.

{#Cheers}

 
Prodigal_SOB

Prodigal_SOB Avatar

Location: Back Home Again in Indiana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2015 - 8:10am

 marko86 wrote:


If this goes the way these normally go, then nothing will actually happen. You notice there is nothing of substance in the article other then he discovered some devastating math error in the climate model, then what happens is people spread this around as though this is some kind of proof. Odds are nothing was submitted to anyone for peer review. But hey, we shall see. Till then, there is nothing to talk about. The climate models, if anything have low balled the effects of climate change, but they are getting better as they accumulate more data and knowledge.

Regarding your statement ", just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied" , Do read Erik X excellent post on the matter , The current massive El Nino going on now, will likely shatter Global surface temperatures records this year.

 
As the resident mathematician I feel I should take issue with this characterization of the article.  Though he may be using his math degrees as credentials nobody is alleging that the computers have been doing their multiplication wrong.  There are several mathematical climate models.  Most make similar assumptions and reach similar results.  What he is talking about is making an assumption that few if any others have and getting different results.  It was kind of a local interest fluff piece that really didn't say much of anything, but telling was that there was no mention of this model being a better fit with observed data.

 


marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2015 - 6:35am

 kurtster wrote:

Interesting choice of words.  Denier and its forms in usage with the topic of climate change is both pejorative and indicates that the one using it has concluded that it is settled science with no further debate to be allowed.  But you then indicate that there might be something to consider should his results pass peer review.

There will be nothing to talk about even if his results stand up and pass a peer review.  A) it won't be reported and B) it would never be allowed to be considered as there are too many people who have invested too much time and money into the notion that it is settled science.  It would be publicly humiliating.  Nope, it would be denied and ignored, just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied.


 

If this goes the way these normally go, then nothing will actually happen. You notice there is nothing of substance in the article other then he discovered some devastating math error in the climate model, then what happens is people spread this around as though this is some kind of proof. Odds are nothing was submitted to anyone for peer review. But hey, we shall see. Till then, there is nothing to talk about. The climate models, if anything have low balled the effects of climate change, but they are getting better as they accumulate more data and knowledge.

Regarding your statement ", just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied" , Do read Erik X excellent post on the matter , The current massive El Nino going on now, will likely shatter Global surface temperatures records this year.
ErikX

ErikX Avatar



Posted: Oct 12, 2015 - 9:23pm

 kurtster wrote:

Interesting choice of words.  Denier and its forms in usage with the topic of climate change is both pejorative and indicates that the one using it has concluded that it is settled science with no further debate to be allowed.  But you then indicate that there might be something to consider should his results pass peer review.

There will be nothing to talk about even if his results stand up and pass a peer review.  A) it won't be reported and B) it would never be allowed to be considered as there are too many people who have invested too much time and money into the notion that it is settled science.  It would be publicly humiliating.  Nope, it would be denied and ignored, just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied.


 

lol! U deniers are still using that? Might as well say its safe to smoke cigs again.  

Debunking the Top 10 Climate Change Myths

Warming has paused!”         This is one of  the most commonly repeated lines. Rather than accepting the steady increase in globally averaged annual temperature across recent decades, the “pause” argument uses the exceptionally warm El Niño year of 1998 as a starting point and draws a trend line to the present, claiming warming has stopped. It ignores how natural cycles like El Niño and La Niña events impact surface temperatures; it purposefully distracts from long-term trends; and it ignores the important role of the ocean, which acts as a heat sink.clip_image002_014.gif

There are a number of ways to disprove the “warming has paused” myth. First, there is the simple fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record (and without an added temperature boost from El Niño, like in 1998). Moreover, nine out of the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, with the tenth being 1998. To get an even better sense of how globally averaged annual temperature has increased since records began in 1880, see this great animation.

In addition to cherry picked years, the “warming has paused” claim is also based on cherry picked temperature measurements taken only from the atmosphere, as opposed to both the ocean and atmosphere. Many people don’t realize the ocean absorbs 90% of the Earth’s excess heat energy, and that it is crucial to include oceanwarming in global temperature analyses. For more information, Skeptical Science has a helpful rebuttaldemonstrating the dangers of drawing trend lines based on cherry picked data points, summed up by this graphic: Escalator500.gif

 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 12, 2015 - 8:07pm

 marko86 wrote:

It appears David Evans is a well known climate denialist. But hey, after he get's peer reviewed and actually publishes something, maybe there will be something to talk about.

 
Interesting choice of words.  Denier and its forms in usage with the topic of climate change is both pejorative and indicates that the one using it has concluded that it is settled science with no further debate to be allowed.  But you then indicate that there might be something to consider should his results pass peer review.

There will be nothing to talk about even if his results stand up and pass a peer review.  A) it won't be reported and B) it would never be allowed to be considered as there are too many people who have invested too much time and money into the notion that it is settled science.  It would be publicly humiliating.  Nope, it would be denied and ignored, just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied.



marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 12, 2015 - 7:45am

 kurtster wrote: 
It appears David Evans is a well known climate denialist. But hey, after he get's peer reviewed and actually publishes something, maybe there will be something to talk about.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 11, 2015 - 6:39am

Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 25, 2015 - 7:53pm


R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Feb 11, 2015 - 9:42pm

 kurtster wrote:
Try this instead ...
https:///youtu.be/dVGINIsLnqU {#Moon}


Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data | PunditFact
Pants on Fire!PerinoOn climate change, "the temperature readings have been fabricated, and it's all blowing up in their (scientists') faces."

Dana Perino on Monday, February 9th, 2015 in a broadcast of "The Five" on Fox News


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 11, 2015 - 8:55pm

 RichardPrins wrote:

{#Wink}

 
Try this instead ...

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Feb 11, 2015 - 12:14pm


{#Wink}
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next