Jump to content
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Good bye El Nino?

Recommended Posts

Mauna Kea Cloudforest

So where did our beloved El Nino go? Apparently the SST conditions have dropped below El Nino and the NWS has recently dropped the chance of an El Nino to 60%.

This does not bode well for drought relief and would also explain why an even more Easterly pattern to the polar vortexes is expected. This means even less rain in California but at least freezes will be well to the East of the rockies.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994771/scientists-were-expecting-a-monster-el-nino-this-year-so-where-did-it

nino34SeaadjPDFC_610_2__1_.0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoomsDave

We'll see.

I remember the last El Nino, when the rain didn't even start till late January but rapidly made up for lost time. Egad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George Sparkman

This morning it was more like "El Angosto" - a very narrow band of thunderstorms bringing much needed rain (well, 1/2 inch of it)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palm crazy

Dang it, I was really looking forward to a warmer dryer winter. Cooling down here this week only in the mid-upper 70’s which is nice then back to the 80’s. The other night it was 83F at 10pm next night only 63F.

Fall is around the corner in a few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silas_Sancona

Agree with Dave.. though I wouldn't be surprised if it is a complete bust.. Than again.. the active Monsoon pattern, warmer SSTs off CA, very active E. Pac, and strange "rainy" season here can't be discounted.. Keep checking the long term forecast forecasts via Stormsurf.com. While skeptical, not giving up hope of at least some relief this winter out there.

Another thing.. Some "interesting" model runs over the last couple days.. Trying to recall the last time the potential for real rainfall from tropical remnants cruising up the CA coast was..

Interesting weather this summer indeed.


-Nathan-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoomsDave

This morning it was more like "El Angosto" - a very narrow band of thunderstorms bringing much needed rain (well, 1/2 inch of it)....I

I can see the clouds, piling high like bouffants in your general direction, all fluffy on top, gray and nasty beneath.

Enjoy the luxury of little rain

I'm betting on El Nino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SubTropicRay

Sounds good to me. The last El Nino it was 26F here. That came at the end of a 12 day stretch where the low temps were 35F and below and the max never made it above 60F. Excessive winter rain here tends to rot palm buds too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Maybe we just aren't good enough yet at predicting weather and climate more than a couple of weeks out. At least not good enough to be basing extensive, expensive, and life changing decisions on what we predict.

A topic from just three short months ago.Massive El Nino Brewing in the Pacific.

Note that the words "Experts Predict" are always used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

I don't think it's that black and white. I think it has more to do with the press and bloggers and what they do with the info, and less with the actual experts. Good headlines make people read stuff. The experts did a pretty good job with their predictions since they gave only a 50% probability of an El Nino developing by Summer, and 80% by Fall.

Dean, I am sure you invest in the stock market and you also make calculated bets. Some work out, some don't. You get to work with probabilities. If we could predict exactly what was going to happen, and we knew for sure an El Nino was coming, we would not be rationing any water anywhere in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trioderob

its comiing

mark my word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

I don't think it's that black and white. I think it has more to do with the press and bloggers and what they do with the info, and less with the actual experts. Good headlines make people read stuff. The experts did a pretty good job with their predictions since they gave only a 50% probability of an El Nino developing by Summer, and 80% by Fall.

Dean, I am sure you invest in the stock market and you also make calculated bets. Some work out, some don't. You get to work with probabilities. If we could predict exactly what was going to happen, and we knew for sure an El Nino was coming, we would not be rationing any water anywhere in California.

Axel,

You sorta got my point. But I was obviously referring to the even longer range forecasts from "the experts" and their probability of accuracy.

Two questions - based on your comments.

1) At what probability of forecast accuracy do you think a nation should mandate an overhaul of their infrastructure, change tax policies and regulations, and drastically alter everyone's life style in an effort to prepare for what "the experts" are predicting?

2) And what probabilty of accuracy would you place on the climate forecast 20 yrs from now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad

Here a quote from a thread you started a few months ago Axel

"The 2014 El Nino could be a record monster El Nino, experts predict. See http://www.motherjon...ld-grow-monster. Global warming is in full swing, and this monster is only going to contribute to more record warmth. It's gonna be a scorching hot Summer out West, and it's gonna be a warm wet Winter as well.

Predictions of the nasty El Nino have already affected the Indian stock market, stay tuned, could be some serious carnage out there."

So............since El Niño isn't going to happen according to you, does this mean global warming is NOT in full swing or did it dive back into the depth of the pacific or is it just that maybe just maybe these experts don't really know as much as you give them credit for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

I don't think it's that black and white. I think it has more to do with the press and bloggers and what they do with the info, and less with the actual experts. Good headlines make people read stuff. The experts did a pretty good job with their predictions since they gave only a 50% probability of an El Nino developing by Summer, and 80% by Fall.

Dean, I am sure you invest in the stock market and you also make calculated bets. Some work out, some don't. You get to work with probabilities. If we could predict exactly what was going to happen, and we knew for sure an El Nino was coming, we would not be rationing any water anywhere in California.

Axel,

You sorta got my point. But I was obviously referring to the even longer range forecasts from "the experts" and their probability of accuracy.

Two questions - based on your comments.

1) At what probability of forecast accuracy do you think a nation should mandate an overhaul of their infrastructure, change tax policies and regulations, and drastically alter everyone's life style in an effort to prepare for what "the experts" are predicting?

2) And what probabilty of accuracy would you place on the climate forecast 20 yrs from now?

Dean, the stock market is more predictable than the weather. As for your two questions, they're going to drive this thread into the whole global warming debate. My answer to 1) is it depends on a lot of things, there's no one sentence answer, only pages upon pages of describing the complexity and nature of whatever prediction you have in mind. The answer to 2) also depends on which model you are talking about and what part of the climate they are forecasting? Overall averages? Detailed weather patterns? Or only basic trends? Will it change? I give it 100% certainty. Will it get hotter on average? I give that a solid 100% as well. Will it be catastrophic? No idea on that one. Would I buy or sell property based on the predictions? Yes, if I lived anywhere there is the possibility of sea water intrusion.

My wife and I were recently considering buying property in Southern California. My motivation was that I like the warmer weather. My wife said if that was the case, there was no point in moving, because it is getting so much hotter up here. In fact, we are better off staying put because it's going to be easier to take the heat increase up here than down south.

The last thing I will note is that your questions imply that we should deduct the quality of 20 year predictions as a function of how well we can predict an El Nino. The El Nino is far more difficult to predict than the long term weather averages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Here a quote from a thread you started a few months ago Axel

"The 2014 El Nino could be a record monster El Nino, experts predict. See http://www.motherjon...ld-grow-monster. Global warming is in full swing, and this monster is only going to contribute to more record warmth. It's gonna be a scorching hot Summer out West, and it's gonna be a warm wet Winter as well.

Predictions of the nasty El Nino have already affected the Indian stock market, stay tuned, could be some serious carnage out there."

So............since El Niño isn't going to happen according to you, does this mean global warming is NOT in full swing or did it dive back into the depth of the pacific or is it just that maybe just maybe these experts don't really know as much as you give them credit for.

Steve, my posts are nothing more than the usual social network rants about meteorological headlines. I post them for the sakes of discussion, not as a statement of any absolute truth. I would expect nothing else from anyone reading it then to be open minded but question everything, challenge everything, and take nothing for granted.

If you want my personal opinion, well, here it is. I believe low solar activity is going to hinder the development of any significant El Nino. The only connection between global warming and El Nino is that over time they will have to move the index up at least 1C to account for warming, otherwise it will look like we're in a perpetual El Nino cycle. Maybe the new ENSO neutral condition is already +0.5C of what it was before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad

It is "usual". Global warming has almost a Sasquatch type following. When an event fits the global warming standard it's HUGE news but when that event never shows up they sweep it under the rug and try to find the next weather event they can blame global warming for. When you make a statesman like "global warming is in full swing" as a man of science I'd expect you to make a similar opposite statement when your prediction is wrong. All these predictions of global warming chaos that never happend should just prove to anyone that the science behind it is flawed.but that's not good news nor is it very profitable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Steve, you are confusing scientists and the press. What you describe is the behavior of the press. Global warming makes great headlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trioderob

there are more than a billion cars on earth now.

each car puts out thousands of pounds of CO2 gas per year

so while the proof on global warming is debatable it pretty clear we are breathing a lot of nasty things in the air along with the co2

(the guy in this avatar admitted to taking steroids)

Edited by trioderob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Wouldn't it be great if acceptance of global warming as fact by the greater populace lead to the improvement of our infrastructure (currently rated a D) and also improved further the quality of our water and air?

What a pity that would be, all on something that "can't be proven" (by pundits and people with degrees not associated with climatology. . . )

As to El Nino. As big an event as it is, it is still a weather event, not a climatological one. It may be heavily influenced by the climate, but it is still just "weather". For California's sake (and much of the rest of the lower 48) I would really like to see it develop soon. However, while Climate is not only readable but reasonably predictable, I don't trust the weather forecast more than 3 days out if even that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

The El Nino is far more difficult to predict than the long term weather averages.

Climate is not only readable but reasonably predictable

Personally, I think these types of conclusions are debateable. The predictions of a cooling climate back in the 70s was totally inaccurate. And the predictions from 25-30 yrs ago of where the temps and sea levels would be today have so far proven to be highly inaccurate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

There's no way they could make any reasonable predictions in the 70's, back then a computer with the power of the processor in my phone didn't even exist, or if it did, it would take up an entire building. Even a 25-30 year old prediction is pretty much highly questionable.

We've come a long way in understanding non-linear dynamics and being able to model complex systems. With that being said, models are still models and not reality. So they're still not truth. But I would be a little more reticent in dismissing their predictions given the computing power we have these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

The predictions of a cooling climate back in the 70s was totally inaccurate.

Y'all need to quit dragging the whole "global cooling" myth out of the closet every time you want to undermine current science with wistful anecdote: http://youtu.be/FM_k4koWMm8

Edited by Funkthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mats

The predictions of a cooling climate back in the 70s was totally inaccurate.

"Those predictions of an impending ice age were media based, not peer reviewed science.

The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article 'Another Ice Age'? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

However, these are media ('mainstream media' for you FOX viewers) articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming. The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.

Today, with 30+ years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

The predictions of a cooling climate back in the 70s was totally inaccurate.

Y'all need to quit dragging the whole "global cooling" myth out of the closet every time you want to undermine current science with wistful anecdote: http://youtu.be/FM_k4koWMm8

So, one You Tube Video from an ultra left wing media outlet with an agenda is what you use to defend your position? I happened to have lived through that media hysteria of the 70s, and remember it well. I don't need a You Tube video to reframe it so it fits the desired narrative.

And I've also lived through several more perceived "crises de jour" that could only be solved by voting, taxing, regulating, or acting a certain way. And the thing they all had in common is that the people who declared the crisis existed, and/or claimed they had the answers, all stood to benifit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

Mats,

There is a part of that quote that always remains unsaid. Let me rephrase it in a way that I think makes it more accurate.

"97% of working climate scientists, who receive government funding in some form or other, agree with the administration's view that human beings are causing global warming, and also agree that government needs more tax money and regulatory power to fund even more research and reverse the process."

All the sources from your "Source" - are assuredly receiving government funding in some form or other - if they are not an outright government agency: (Name one of the following that you think doesn't receive government funding)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

American Meteorological Society

The Royal Society of the UK

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

American Association for the Advancement of Science

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palmaceae

Not to mention the boat load of money Al Gore made from this. I just pray it is a warm winter this year as I was in Iowa last several years experiencing "Global Warming" with the coldest winters in history. Is the climate changing, I am sure it is, do we have an effect on it, I am sure we do, but climate has always changed, with cars and factories, and without. I am sure all the people who say we are adding too much CO2 and adding to "global warming" are still driving their cars and buying things made from factories, not much we can do about that.

I being from Iowa saw first hand what renewable energy does, and how government subsidizes it. We had a lot of ethanol plants in Iowa and a majority of the corn was grown for that, which in turn created a shortage of food to starving countries that need it. Plus making ethanol is not efficient and running ethanol is not efficient in your car. So in short, government subsidizes, government adding to the hysteria to the general public does not make for a subjected view of climate change.

Again I just pray for a frost free year as my collection is new and needs to get established!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Mats - just one example to back up my previous point. Let's take the first listed source (from your media "source") that isn't an outright government agency - the American Institute of Physics.

The AIP was founded in 1931 as a response to lack of funding for the sciences during the Great Depression. …one core activity is as an advocate for science policy to the U.S. Congress. (Wikipedia)

Another way of saying a core activity is lobbying Congress for money - and you think they can remain unbiased???

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mats

97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

There is a part of that quote that always remains unsaid. Let me rephrase it in a way that I think makes it more accurate.

"97% of working climate scientists, who receive government funding in some form or other, agree with the administration's view that human beings are causing global warming, and also agree that government needs more tax money and regulatory power to fund even more research and reverse the process."

All the sources from your "Source" - are assuredly receiving government funding in some form or other - if they are not an outright government agency: (Name one of the following that you think doesn't receive government funding)

So there's this huge, global conspiracy involving all those scientific organizations around the world and their member climatologists and not one of them has broken ranks and spilled the beans? Do you really believe that?

"There actually is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, and it's not what you'll hear from most conspiracy theorists: between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-Anti Global Warming organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Follow the money, indeed." source

Read what Wikipedia and Rational Wiki have to say about your supposed global warming conspiracy theory.

Where is all the peer reviewed literature that refutes the theory of anthropogenic climate change? If your side has a case, where's the evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Mats - I would not call it a conspiracy when all the research funded by governments come up with the facts that support what their governments want to hear. And all the research funded by the various special interests (oil, coal, etc), come up with evidence that supports their point of view. That's just human nature.

If the government really wanted the truth, they would make an equal amount of funding available for any organization looking for evidence to the contrary. If they offered the same hundreds of millions of dollars to such organizations, and promised additional funding for further research if inconsistencies were uncovered in today's government supported position - you would immediately find there were many more scientists and organizations coming up with evidence supporting that man made global warming is a hoax - and laughing all the way to the bank. And again, that would just be human nature.

But at least that would show that this issue left the realm of unbiased accuracy around the same time a Vice President became a movie producer and global warming Nobel Prize winner. From that point forward, science and politics have become bedfellows - and trustworthy accuracy became the victim.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

And Mats - just for the record - I happen to think that there is a better than 50/50 probability that man is contributing to some aspect of atmospheric warming. How much? I have no idea. IMO - our level of understanding all the nuances of global climate, and the veracity of the data is suspect.

But let's say I give in and say I am 100% convinced. So - now what???

Do we have Americans cut their greenhouse emissions in half - or let's go for 90%. Is the problem solved? Have other problems been created? Would it be worth it?

I'm with you now. Where do we go from here?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mats

If the government really wanted the truth, they would make an equal amount of funding available for any organization looking for evidence to the contrary. If they offered the same hundreds of millions of dollars to such organizations, and promised additional funding for further research if inconsistencies were uncovered in today's government supported position - you would immediately find there were many more scientists and organizations coming up with evidence supporting that man made global warming is a hoax - and laughing all the way to the bank. And again, that would just be human nature.

"Between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-Anti Global Warming organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute."

So the anti-Global Warming organizations already are receiving $900 million a year and have been since 2003.

So where's all this evidence that you said would immediately be found that "man made global warming is a hoax"?

But instead we're left with post-235-0-70234600-1408916939_thumb.jpg
And then tell us why all those scientists who are are lying, just to get Government funding, are spurning the $900 million doled out annually by the conservative billionaires to instead, be a hero and tell us the truth, that it's all a hoax.
"A sinecure at a denialist think tank can easily pay better than an actual post as a climatology professor."
Do you really think it feasible that there's not at least one whistle blower out of the thousands of scientists worldwide to come clean and spill the beans?

Sorry, your conspiracy theory simply isn't plausible Dean.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Thanks, Mats, couldn't have said it better myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Dean, the one thing that I find disturbing is that the center piece of your argument is your dismissal of the peer review process in Science. While it's not a perfect system, it's the best we have, and it works. If it didn't, we wouldn't be making all the advances we've made. I find it quite disturbing when there is $900 Million flowing into funding FUD against science and it bypasses the actual peer review process, in fact, it's central strategy is to attack and discredit the scientific process.

Climate change denial has already been clearly exposed, it's backed by 1) the fossil fuel industry and 2) by free market think tanks. As described by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial, it's clearly outlined to show how it does not adhere to the Scientific process, nor is it motivated by a desire to find the truth, instead it's guided by ideological and commercial motives.

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4]

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

I happen to think that there is a better than 50/50 probability that man is contributing to some aspect of atmospheric warming.

Axel,

Where do you find dismissal in that statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

IMO - our level of understanding all the nuances of global climate, and the veracity of the data is suspect.

Probably that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

So the anti-Global Warming organizations already are receiving $900 million a year and have been since 2003.

So where's all this evidence that you said would immediately be found that "man made global warming is a hoax"?

How many satellites do you think that amount of money puts in orbit - even one??? How is $900 million a year supposed to compete with government resources??? (and I would request your source on that figure, please)

How many satellites have government sponsored research sent up? You happen to trust that they would never alter, dismiss, or analyze any of that data in ways that would support their thesis. I don't. Many of the predictions they made 25 years ago have been way off. Yet we are afraid of their predictions for the next 25 years???

But you haven't answered my question. I gave up. I stipulated that the odds are man is contributing to global warming. Now what? How about a solution that doesn't give governments more money and more power? Why do you suppose that none of those solutions are promoted by governments?

Do you really think that if the U.S. cuts some emissions that will make any difference at all? Look what happened to Spain's economy when they tried the "green route." Even Germany continues to add coal fired plants to it's grid.

I don't happen to think that if I pay twice as much for gas and electricity that my life (or anyone's for that matter) is going to improve. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trioderob

consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years

Edited by trioderob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trioderob

-" I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

First, what are your hard numbers for what the government is pumping into this 'hoax", and how does that compare to $ 900 million per year?

Second, back of envelope calculations: Let's say a weather satellite is rather large and weighs about 1000 kg, and the cost per kilogram to put into orbit is about $4500 (as per Falcon 9 at SpaceX). It would cost ~$4.5 million dollars to put a large and functional satellite into orbit.

Now, at $900 million per year, the "anti-global warming" organizations could afford to launch 200 satellites per year for the last 11 years for a total of 2200 new fancy awesome weather satellites. Actually, Space X hasn't been around that long, and it was more expensive before, so let's halve that. Still over 1000 satellites in orbit.

How many satellites have been launched by any such organization so they could show the "truth" and blow this hoax wide open?

Zero

Edited by Funkthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Climate change denial has already been clearly exposed, it's backed by 1) the fossil fuel industry and 2) by free market think tanks. As described by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial, it's clearly outlined to show how it does not adhere to the Scientific process, nor is it motivated by a desire to find the truth, instead it's guided by ideological and commercial motives.

So Axel,

Are you prepared to tell me that Global Warming Proponents have no ideological, commercial, or ulterior motives of their own???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years

So, exactly the same thing that has happened for millions of years when there are periods of above "normal" volcanic activity.

You have identified the problem Rob. The problem isn't solely the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. It's that the ability of the natural buffering from the jungles and forests, along with the killing and pollution of the oceans that is equally (if not more) a part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...