|
|
|
|
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:09:01 PM |
Socialism takes away natural survival of the fittest and rewards non-productivity. Instead of the most productive becoming the decision makers through capitol generated by productivity, socialism puts the most parasitic in charge.
 Okay, that was funny, ahoytheredave - I can see right at what your beliefs are. So, according to you, big fat billionaire industrial people - like Cheney and other oilers - are of course the most productive and that's why they are decision makers? And of course, their systematic funneling of all the money and resources that are mined, transformed, produced by the vast majority of the poor population - which are STAYING poor because of this, by the way - THAT's not "puting the most parasitic in charge" ? Wow.
But, other than the fact that our view RADICALLY diverge, we are off topic, so let's get back to global warming, if you please. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:11:19 PM | Here is another question woth answering.
What is wrong with global warming?
Every period of warming in the past has been followed by prosperity, why not this time? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:19:05 PM |
For the time being ConsciousSoul. I will agree with you if you can answer my last question. The earth will warm and cool even without human intervention. Where do we set the global thermostat?
The earth warms and cools all the time, according to very complex laws: amount of CO2 and green gas in the athmosphere, amount of sun, area of the globe vs time of the year and position of the globe in the elliptic curve around the sun, and so forth.
However, the global average temperature has been within the very same parameters, for thousands of years. It has been roughly stable: didn't change even from half a degree in centuries.
Now it is rising. Steadily rising for the past 20 years. So I return to you your own question: how long do you want to wait before you accept that fact? How dire the consequences do we need to see before we actually go: "Oups! Maybe we should have done something?" It only takes 2 degrees globally for the movement to become unstoppable. It only takes 5 degrees globally to have the sea level rise by several meters. The current curve shows a tendency toward exponential. Should we let it reach that point? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:28:10 PM |
What is wrong with global warming?
Every period of warming in the past has been followed by prosperity, why not this time?
Woooo please slow down.
Every period of ice age was followed by a warming stage, then followed by a new ice age, and so on.
The entire era of industrialization - the last 100 years or so, plus quite a few centuries before that, mind you - were ALL within a warming area. Not within an Ice age.
If we were in an ice age, then yes, a globalized warming would be good. Of course, it would also be useless, because most civilization would be dead. We aren't geared to live in an ice age.
So, if we get MORE warming, suddenly, now, we are not anymore in the normal pattern. We go OVER what's normal. Wayyyyy over. Ice caps, which NEVER melted in 100,000 years of existence, will melt. Sea level will rise dramatically. Continent will be reshaped. hundreds of millions of people who live by the sea or just above sea level will be displaced, their country or land forever lost to the sea. Bugs that are normally eradicated by the cold will swarm new areas they couldn't reach before, rebalancing the whole ecosystem and affecting large populations, spreading new diseases. Isn't it worth it to do something? Even if there is only 1 per cent chance of stopping this, it MUST be taken. And the odds that it *IS* because of CO2 is a lot, lot lot more than 1%. | |
|
| |
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:43:04 PM | Let's pretend I'm stupid (not a stertch for most LOL), answer me a question.
What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas? | |
|
| |
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/22/2008 5:19:25 AM | Hang on there ConciouSsoul,
This whole Thread subject is an intriging and mysterious swamp (To me and no doubt many others).
The whole thing is riddled with sentiment, vagueness, assumption,prophecy,..plus a little hand wringing.
For me and others, to be simpathetic to your theory, we all have to agree on very basic facts; Free of sentiment and assumption; Long before we get to any conclusion. A bit like a good detective. ...
You wrote:
So, if we get MORE warming, suddenly, now, we are not anymore in the normal pattern. We go OVER what's normal. Wayyyyy over. Ice caps, which NEVER melted in 100,000 years of existence, will melt. Sea level will rise dramatically. Continent will be reshaped. hundreds of millions of people who live by the sea or just above sea level will be displaced, their country or land forever lost to the sea. Bugs that are normally eradicated by the cold will swarm new areas they couldn't reach before, rebalancing the whole ecosystem and affecting large populations, spreading new diseases. Isn't it worth it to do something? Even if there is only 1 per cent chance of stopping this, it MUST be taken. And the odds that it *IS* because of CO2 is a lot, lot lot more than 1%.
...So by implication the ice caps prior to the 100,000 years... were not there, I assume you mean!
The world is ALWAYS changing...sometimes quickly... sometimes slowly;
and we humans...as big has you would have us, are not going to change these profound eco-dynamics | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/22/2008 8:28:43 AM |
...So by implication the ice caps prior to the 100,000 years... were not there, I assume you mean!
Not at all. All it means is, we have the ability to return over 100,000 years back in term of ice composition and analysis, which means the ice caps were there at least 100,000 years ago, never melted below a certain point in all these years, and we know the co2 level also in these samples from all the way back to 100,000 years.
Yes, earth changes all the time.... verrrrrry slowly. If now it starts changing abruptly, changing in less than 20 years more than it changed in 100,000 years before, isn't that an indication things are very, very wrong - for us? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/22/2008 3:16:47 PM | "Yes, earth changes all the time.... verrrrrry slowly. If now it starts changing abruptly, changing in less than 20 years more than it changed in 100,000 years before, isn't that an indication things are very, very wrong - for us? "
...64 thousand dollar question...MMm, If i'm honest and, I don't want to worry the community but, the scarest theory I have heard ( which I haven't heard challenged) is that If... the Co2's in the atmosphere reach a certain level; and the sea and air temp are ideal; Algae, theoretically, could start to exponatially prolifarate, giving off Co2's themselves, and so driving an unstoppable massive greenhouse effect. (Curtains for us all!)
That is a worry (but don't tell any one ).
Basically keeping co2 production to a minimum is common sense.
So is stopping the destruction of major jungles, (The Amazon)...over to U | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/22/2008 3:25:20 PM | cingray3, please engage brain for a second (no offence). Co2 levels have been far higher in the past than they are today and no such thing happened. I recommend a book called Meltdown (try Amazon.com). It will set you straight on a few facts here and there, including many of these "predictions".
But I agree, for other reasons (biodiversity not least), that we should stop cutting down the rain forests! Perhaps we would do better to put 1/4 trillion dollars a year into that little project rather than paying for CO2 credits?
The whole co2 debate is an idiotic red herring in my view. That so many people can be so unbelievably stupid for so long really makes me incredulous - I'm not the brightest in this debate, but even I can see there's something not quite right about the whole thing. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/22/2008 10:13:12 PM | FEAR.... BE AFRAID... OMG the sky is falling....
Let me sell ya some carbon credits to help ya out!!!!!
Where do I get them you say?... why, I just print em up... just like money?...
Anyone know how to get into that business? Or is it just for the big backroom boys?
I've already posted one peer reviewed article that says the ice is getting thicker in Antartica.
According to IPCC figures sea level rise will be at the VERY most 14" by 2090.
And more than likely closer to 7"...
Sea levels have been going up ever since the last Ice age ended... it's gone up by about 300 ft or so...
It was actually warmer than now back about 800 to 1000 years ago... Greenland supported agriculture and trees at that time... and somehow those polar bears managed to survive. But those greenlanders had to leave after things started getting colder.
Glaciers have also been receding since the last ice age.
The amount of CO2 that human activity MAY be responsible for accounts for .oo95% of the total atmospheric gases.
Ice core samples from the Antartic show a definite correlation between warming and CO2 levels... the CO2 rising levels occuring AFTER the temperature rises.
From the mid 1940's to 1970's CO2 levels going up.... Global temps going down!!!!
Time ran Op/ed on Global Cooling!!!!!
Be AFRAID... Al gore is spending 300 million dollars to convince everyone Global Climate change is a danger.... Where is he getting that kind of money? To convince us what EVERYONE says that there is a world wide consensus on it? Why? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/23/2008 12:29:37 PM | What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas? asked Roverdisc1.
Water vapor is the answer.
In the following are parts of an article that is old but it has some interesting points for those in this thread who blame humans for global warming.
ScienceDaily (June 15, 2001) — COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.
The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.
Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical Society.
Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.
"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."
How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.
For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.
He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.
Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.
"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."
"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about 25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.
As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first appeared over 30 years ago and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist magazine.
According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is less snow to replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink. That could be the cause behind the retreat of the Arctic ice cap that scientists are documenting today, Essenhigh said.
As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again. Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.
According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age.
Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.
"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers." | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/23/2008 4:03:20 PM | There is at least one time in the earth's geologic past when global warming was thought to play a part in a mass extinction. This was the Permian/Triassic extinction where approximately 90% of all species on this planet perished(compared to about 50-60% of species at the KT extinction, the one that ended the dinosaurs). The current and most plausible theory is that volcanic outgassing from the Siberian Traps basalt flow eruption released enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause the earths temperature to rise about 10 degree celsius.
The Siberian Traps eruption is thought to be the largest known volcanic event in earths history(earths initial formation notwithstanding). Massive amounts of various gases, one of which was CO2, were belched out over a period of about 500,000 to a million years. Estimates are that the CO2 concentration then was 5x as much as it is now. The other part of this theory is that the initial rise of 10 degrees C also triggered methane to erupt as gas from the ocean, further increasing the temperature by twice this amount.
The closest modern comparison we have to this is a lava fissure eruption in Iceland in the 18th century. This event was short lived and puny by comparison to the Siberian Traps eruption, but even it had a profound effect on the climate in the northern hemisphere. Because sulfur dioxide was also released with CO2, the sulfur dioxide had a short term cooling effect on the climate. If the eruption had continued the long term warming effect of the CO2 likely would have been greater than the short term cooling effects of the SO2 gas.
So, you are probably wondering, did anyone actually come up with any numbers as to the rate of CO2 outgassing of the PT extinction compared to human activity today?
Stating that the "anthropogenic rate of carbon dioxide release , , , is roughly tens to perhaps thousands of times faster than the average rate at the end of the Permian" may seem to be an extraordinary claim, so here are the numbers. The amount of fossil fuel carbon is about 5000 billion metric tons (Gt), equivalent to some 18.3 trillion metric tons (Tt) of carbon dioxide. Released into the atmosphere over the next 300 years, that is an average of about 61 billion metric tons (Gt) of anthropogenic carbon dioxide per year.
The maximum estimated volume of Siberian Traps extrusives is about 3 million cubic kilometers (about 720,000 cubic miles). Divided by an estimated length of Siberian Traps volcanism of some one million years, the average volcanic extrusion rate is 3 cubic kilometers (about 0.72 cubic miles) per year. Leavitt, 1982, estimates that each cubic kilometer of extruded basalt releases 3.5 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide, for a total of 10.5 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide as the average annual release rate for Siberian Traps volcanism. Comparable total figures from Gerlach and Graeber, 1985, and Javoy and Michaud, 1989, are 48 million metric tons (Mt) per year, and 70.4 million metric tons (Mt) per year, respectively.
The anthropogenic carbon dioxide release rate is therefore about 6000 times faster than the average Siberian Traps release rate indicated by Leavitt, 1250 times faster than that of Gerlach and Graeber, and 850 times faster than that of Javoy and Michaud. If the duration of Siberian Traps volcanism much shorter than a million years, as say on the order of 100,000 years (the shortest duration estimated by Renne and Basu, 1991), relative rates would be reduced by an order of magnitude, to 600 times faster than the Leavitt estimate, 125 times faster than the Gerlach and Graeber estimate, and 85 times faster than the Javoy and Michaud estimate.
In examining these figures, however, it is important to note that the Siberian Traps carbon dioxide release rates are averages, and that large igneous province volcanic eruptions are presumably highly episodic. Consequently, actual carbon dioxide release rates are probably quite variable over the course of the eruption's duration.
In a nutshell, according to these estimates, human activity is putting CO2 at today at least hundreds the times the rate of the Siberian Traps eruption that caused the greatest mass extinction event in earths history.
here is the link for the credit and reference source- http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/dorritie/now.html
I really wish human induced global climate change was a bunch of B.S., but as a scientist myself I have to weight the evidence and realize that it is a serious problem, potentially more serious than most people realize. Now, I don't think the solution is living in caves, but I think a lot of research should go into better energy sources than fossil fuels and other technology to reduce carbon emissions. However, I am more optimistic that technological engineering solutions can be found to alleviate the situation. Here is a link to one such website-
http://www.worldchanging.com/ | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/23/2008 4:16:10 PM | If there's one argument that works, it's this:
For all of the anti-global warming activists, heed these words. Is it necesarily that bad to STOP POLLUTING? Regardless of the reasons, why, we all know pollution is bad. Concentration on the concept of global warming will make our environment much less volatile and even create new industries. The carbon credit could become a whole new market itself and lead to a flurry of investment into companies that promote pollution reduction. I don't see the harm in this. In fact, I see it as an opportunity to invest money into and cash in eventually.
No matter what the issue, there's always a silver lining. So for all you die hard Republicans, get on board and start looking into the carbon reduction industry. There just might be some money to made. You consider yourselves capitalists, don't you??? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/23/2008 10:10:51 PM |
For all of the anti-global warming activists, heed these words. Is it necesarily that bad to STOP POLLUTING? Regardless of the reasons, why, we all know pollution is bad.
CO2 is not pollution. GW hysteria diverts financial and scientific resources away from pollution. GW hysteria is what lead to the ethanol scam which has contributed to the rise in price of gas and food (leading to starvation and malnutrition), and has increased pollution. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/23/2008 10:20:54 PM | | Just my 2 cents... The real cause of most man made pollutions is the fact that countrys keep going into other countrys and trying to industralize them ahead of when they would normaly be ready for it. Example... If the USA had not spent billions on china and creating chinas metal factorys the world have about a china less of pollution on our hands. Now we are gona try to do the same thing with the middle east :( :( | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/23/2008 11:42:17 PM | | Sounds like you have been to China. Yeah, I agree the pollution is horrible there. They should be held accountable for their emissions also. Not so sure about us doing it to them. They initially built a bunch of their factories during their so-called great leap forward in the 1950's. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/24/2008 5:05:50 AM | Markthenosogreat, you didn't link to peer reviewed papers (actually after reading the Wegman report, I'm not so enamoured with the concept of Peer Review in Climate Science in any case). What you've linked to is a website full of alarmist speculation, selective quoting and cherry picking.
It's about time someone put a stop to this, because the whole of Science is being sullied in the mind of the public by these increasingly ridiculous pronouncements. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/24/2008 10:35:03 AM | Countibi said:
CO2 is not pollution. GW hysteria diverts financial and scientific resources away from pollution. GW hysteria is what lead to the ethanol scam which has contributed to the rise in price of gas and food (leading to starvation and malnutrition), and has increased pollution.
First, note that the ethanol scam was put in place by the very same people who are financing the WG deniers: the oil companies and big industrials. They are USING the ecologist momentum to promote MORE oil. But please realize that it is not because some people will use the GW for non-ecological purpose, or to make even more money, that makes the global warming false! There is no link between the GW truthfulness or not, and it's use by cupid people to make more money at the expense of killing MORE of our living conditions.
Second, CO2 *IS* pollution. If you breath enough CO2, you die. Green plants can breath CO2 and that's great, but that doesn't change the fact that it is part of the massive smog and pollution we do in every large city. How is GW diverting financial and scientific ressources away from pollution, if it isn't pollution? What's pollution, for you? Note than you can call it "green little alien" or "red potatoe" instead of "pollution" and it doesn't change the fact that we are going toward massive problems if we don't dramatically reduce it, period. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/24/2008 2:42:37 PM | ConsciousSoul, that's ridiculous. CO2 is no more a pollutant than Nitrogen and our atmosphere contains mostly that. We are talking about parts per million here and in 100 years time we'll still be talking parts per million.
You're also using a loaded term, "denier", instead of the proper term, "sceptic", presumably because it adds a little Ad Hominem to your argument. I am not influenced by oil companies, I'm influenced by the Science and being of reasonable intelligence, I'm capable of making up my own mind, rather than listening to and taking on trust arguments from authority. In fact, being free of the Paradigm is something that gives me enormous pleasure.
If you want to reduce pollution, the thing you DON'T want to do is push an unbelievably stupid hypothesis onto the public that will eventually be falsified (if it hasn't been already) when the Paradigm is overturned (as it eventually will be). Every time Scientists tell the world the sky is falling in they lose a little credibility when it doesn't. The bank balances of the institutions they work for may be bolstered by credulous politicians and those with an anti-capitalist agenda for a while, but eventually their work will lose public support. This is the danger inherent in the current AGW hyperbole. If Science loses public trust, we're all doomed. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/24/2008 4:17:18 PM | | The three studies that I mentioned, to my knowledge, are peer reviewed. And the theories about what caused the PT extinction even are valid scientific theories, and they are widely known outside of these sources. It is still controversial, but now there is about as much evidence supporting it now as there was for the Alverez theory of the KT extinction event(that big asteroid) when it gained wide acceptance as a theory. If you want to dig through the peer reviewed work, including the references mentioned in the article, I can assure you they will basically say the same thing. You have to ask yourself if it is worth the global risk if these guys are right. I also have a degree in geology fwiw. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/24/2008 10:38:43 PM |
Second, CO2 *IS* pollution. If you breath enough CO2, you die. Green plants can breath CO2 and that's great, but that doesn't change the fact that it is part of the massive smog and pollution we do in every large city
CO2 is necessary for life on this planet... green plants are thriving (including crops) because of the higher levels.... thereby locking CO2 into their cells.
We are discussing Global Warming here.... not pollution... which I am sure most people here are against.
There are many more pollutants that are 1000's of time worse than CO2.
PCB's, Fertilizers, GM modified plants, Hormones fed to dairy cows that cause cancers in humans who drink their milk, Heavy metals, Food preservatives, you name it.
I believe that any child born today has over 200 different toxic chemicals in his body. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/25/2008 2:14:46 PM | CO2 is necessary for life on this planet... green plants are thriving (including crops) because of the higher levels.... thereby locking CO2 into their cells.
We are discussing Global Warming here.... not pollution... which I am sure most people here are against.
.....and Vitamin A is a beneficial vitamin for human health, but too much can be fatal. Water is essential for all life, but humans won't last long in an underwater environment.
Just because CO2 has many beneficial applications doesn't mean too much of it in the wrong place can't cause problems, which meets my definition for pollution.
Some plants, like ragweed, may indeed be thriving under the increased quantities of CO2. Many plants, however, may not. See
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11655
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
And all that extra CO2 in our oceans is increasing seawater acidity to the point that shellfish may not be able to produce viable shells soon along with a number of other threats to healthy ocean ecosystems.
http://aprn.org/2008/07/07/ocean-turning-acidic-threatening-fisheries-possible-mass-extinction/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060220231628.htm
There are those here who don't think concentrations of atmospheric CO2 higher than ever experienced in human history are anything to worry about. The established scientific community thinks otherwise. Quibbling over whether to call it pollution or too much of a good thing doesn't change the urgency of cutting back on our production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to minimize the damage of climate change/global warming.
Dave | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/26/2008 3:21:49 PM | Water, water everywhere so lets all sit and think.
Here's a guy that truely gets what's happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Hdixpk-TQ
With all arguments there's always the 'what if'. What if it's not CO2 but our increase in the production of water vapour that's warming the planet? Afterall, water vapour is the predominant greenhouse gas.
If it is water vapour then our governments arguments for increased nuclear power plants really holds no water....forgive the pun.
If it is our production of water vapour that is warming the planet then it is our very way of life and production of food that is the cause.
No, no. much better to blame CO2 and give the general population something to believe they can control.
Please do watch these vids and have a think about the logic behind them. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
