Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on December 08, 2002, 01:11:32 AM
-
Hello:
When I read reports about new global warming evidence and rersearch I often see a statement like: "these are the highest temperatures ever seen in the area since the 19XX" or one on CNN.com now that says "Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s", as opposed to highest temperature on record statistics. Well doesnt this go against the argument they are making that these temperatures are unnnatural and due to recent modern human pollution if they were seen so long ago before the vast majority of human polluting activity?
Anyone?
-
So what is your question?
Tronsky
-
Well doesnt this go against the argument they are making that these temperatures are unnnatural and due to recent modern human pollution if they were seen so long ago before the vast majority of human polluting activity?
Looks pretty clear to me? you miss it?
-
When I read reports about new global warming evidence and rersearch I often see a statement like: "these are the highest temperatures ever seen in the area since the 19XX" or one on CNN.com now that says "Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s", as opposed to highest temperature on record statistics.
The whole statement didn't have anything to actually question. It is a question on conjecture.
It's like asking:
I've often heard that if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wheelbarrow. But wheelbarrows have only 2 wheels but she'd need more than 2 - then she wouldn't actually be a wheelbarrow. Doesn't this go against the normal argument that my grandmother doesn't need wheels at all?
Tronsky
-
GLOBAL WARMING EVIDENCE EXAMPLE:
"Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s"
MY QUESTION:
Doesn't that type of argument go against the idea of recent human pollution causing unnatural warming - because it clearly states that such temperatures occured quite a long time ago in terms of human pollution output.
Simple enough I think.
-
CNN is probably not a good source for scientific data . The average global temperature has only risen about 1 degree over the last 150 years . But it doesn't take miss cleo to see that if green house gasses keep increasing the way that they have been the last 200 years that it will affect the climate .
-
Seems the temps go in cycles. Not worried as long as the temp doesn't break and maintain records.
I'd be more worried about the condition of our ozone layer. If it degrades bad enough, we'd probably die.
-
Samples taken in Law dome antartica and data collected in Mana lao Hawaii indicate from 1000 to 1800 atmospheric co2 stayed pretty much the same at around 240ppm . From 1800 to 2000 it increased dramatically to about 335ppm. During the mesozoic era(dinosaurs) when there were no polar icecaps the atmospheric co2 was supposedly 18 times what it is now.
Some visual aids .
(http://www.ems.psu.edu/info/explore/globalwarming/lawdome.jpg)
(http://www.ems.psu.edu/info/explore/globalwarming/maunaloa_co2.jpg)
(http://www.ems.psu.edu/info/explore/globalwarming/t_trends.gif)
-
When I read reports about new global warming evidence and rersearch I often see a statement like: "these are the highest temperatures ever seen in the area since the 19XX" or one on CNN.com now that says "Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s", as opposed to highest temperature on record statistics.
It seems to me the above sets the context for the question.
Well doesnt this go against the argument they are making that these temperatures are unnnatural and due to recent modern human pollution if they were seen so long ago before the vast majority of human polluting activity?
Simple enough to me but maybe something is lost in the translation.
Its nothing like your wheelbarrow story.
"If Greenland had experienced warm bouts in the past how can science attribute the current state of the climate to "global warming."
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
GLOBAL WARMING EVIDENCE EXAMPLE:
"Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s"
MY QUESTION:
Doesn't that type of argument go against the idea of recent human pollution causing unnatural warming - because it clearly states that such temperatures occured quite a long time ago in terms of human pollution output.
Simple enough I think.
>"Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s"
Says who?
>these are the highest temperatures ever seen in the area since the 19XX
What? Where?
You see...I understood your end question quite well, but your anecdotal postulation was vague to say the least, especially if you're looking to debunk theories/arguments on Global warming.
Tronsky
-
The whole global warming in and of it self is conjecture and "anecdotal postulation". Still Gruen's question was clear. If you didnt think it worth answering then why enter the thread?
The question of "who, what" was in his 1st post
CNN.com
I guess you missed that as well?
-
But it doesn't take miss cleo to see that if green house gasses keep increasing the way that they have been the last 200 years that it will affect the climate .
So that's it. Miss Cleo is behind this global warming hype.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The whole global warming in and of it self is conjecture and "anecdotal postulation". Still Gruen's question was clear. If you didnt think it worth answering then why enter the thread?
The question of "who, what" was in his 1st post
I guess you missed that as well?
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.
thats from EPA.gov
IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100
Thats also from epa.gov or is it? After all the epa site is fairly exstensive...I could be making it all up.
possibly from the same site:
But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult. This is especially true when one asks how a local region will be affected.
Perhaps that is the answer to: Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s.
Hmmm an exact reference might be better you think, so we could assertain the context?
OF course I could just go to:the actual CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/07/polar.warming.ap/index.html) and find the 3rd and 4th paragraph BEFORE Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s. which states: Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.
A new five-year research plan presented this week by scientists and government officials meeting in Washington, D.C., asserts that people clearly are agents of environmental change, though it is still unclear how much human activity contributes.
or the 2 paragraphs after:
Since 1979, the melt area has grown by 16 percent and is affecting higher and higher elevations.
Across the Arctic Ocean, the floating mantle of ice that covers it throughout much of the year shrank to record levels this summer, said Mark Serreze, also of the University of Colorado. In September, sea ice extent was 4 percent lower that that seen in any previous September since monitoring began in 1978.
Those paragraphs in the same article floating around CNN.com might also be the answer to the original question:
doesnt this go against the argument they are making that these temperatures are unnnatural and due to recent modern human pollution if they were seen so long ago before the vast majority of human polluting activity?
Possibly - but people clearly are agents of environmental change and considering the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution clearly predates the 1930's. Coupled with the fact that most proper records of climate change (ie. ice melt) seem to have been recorded from the late 20th century then it is entirely possible that early pollution and temps are linked.
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/globanntemp_pg.gif)
Tronsky
-
earth is getting a bit warmer.
CO2 level has increased.
I've never seen any evidence that there's a link between those two.
-
Something else:
A real green house works by stopping the wind from blowing away the air heated by close contact with the ground. This doesn't work with the earth. The air can't be blown away with or without green house gas.
CO2 is a great green house gas. An increased CO2 level works great in green houses to increase plant growth. They need it to breathe.
Imagine two earths. One with the other without lot's of green house gas. Both attached to eachother with their atmospheres. Do you think one would get warmer than the other? We should build such a system, that would solve all mankinds energy problems.
-
green house gas is a misleading term . the reason why gases like c02, h20, and methane cause global warming is becuase the reflect infared radiation .
-
Here is a usefull non politcal site on the subject .
http://www.ems.psu.edu/info/explore/globalwarming/intro.html
-
Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.
Then you seem to conclude
but people clearly are agents of environmental change
Like I said
The whole global warming in and of it self is conjecture and "anecdotal postulation".
Given known wheather and climate patterns over the past the 30 years no one has yet produced a model that accurrately matches what we see now based on previous known data.
Even the ozone thinning has shown that it has recovered somewhat.
Co2 levels have been higher on this planet then they are now. The earth recovered. Scientist cant even tell you if what we see now is a product of a post ice age warm up or if following the current conditions we may face a "cooling down" period later. But I care nothing about global warming, I was just pointing out that instead of taking a shot at Gruen your first replies were completely lacking in substance.
As it stands Gruen's original post and question was clear. Cut-n-Paste all you want but the others in the thread got it.
-
Wotan, are you saying it is isn't getting hotter, the polar ice caps aren't melting at unprecidented rate, the glaciers aren't receeding at speeds not seen in hundreds of thousands of years?
-
the polar ice caps aren't melting at unprecidented rate
By what standard and over what time frame?
If you read his quote here
But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult. This is especially true when one asks how a local region will be affected.
A new five-year research plan presented this week by scientists and government officials meeting in Washington, D.C., asserts that people clearly are agents of environmental change, though it is still unclear how much human activity contributes.
Finally
Since 1979, the melt area has grown by 16 percent and is affecting higher and higher elevations.
Across the Arctic Ocean, the floating mantle of ice that covers it throughout much of the year shrank to record levels this summer, said Mark Serreze, also of the University of Colorado. In September, sea ice extent was 4 percent lower that that seen in any previous September since monitoring began in 1978.
Prove that these percentages of melt havent occurred before. Sea ice melt could be related a shift in warm water currents.
Co2 levels have been theorized to have been at much higher levels in the earths history. Life didnt end. Hi temps could mean higher humidity and water vapor trapped in the atmosphere. That could absorb the co2 bring to earth in rain and we could go into a rapid "cool down".
Anyway this is stupid issue that I care little about. As a matter of fact I work at an electric generating station that utilizes coal as a fuel source.
I will throw a couple of extra lumps on for yas.........
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Prove that these percentages of melt havent occurred before. Sea ice melt could be related a shift in warm water currents.
B]
I didn't say NEVER before. I said not in hundreds of thousands of years.
Snow falls in layers every year. You can read them like the rings of a tree.
"Anyway this is stupid issue that I care little about. As a matter of fact I work at an electric generating station that utilizes coal as a fuel source. "
Flee puny mortal, for you are being crushed in the IRON GRIP of reason!! Muahahahahah!
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Then you seem to conclude
Like I said
Given known wheather and climate patterns over the past the 30 years no one has yet produced a model that accurrately matches what we see now based on previous known data.
Even the ozone thinning has shown that it has recovered somewhat.
Co2 levels have been higher on this planet then they are now. The earth recovered. Scientist cant even tell you if what we see now is a product of a post ice age warm up or if following the current conditions we may face a "cooling down" period later. But I care nothing about global warming, I was just pointing out that instead of taking a shot at Gruen your first replies were completely lacking in substance.
As it stands Gruen's original post and question was clear. Cut-n-Paste all you want but the others in the thread got it.
Actaully all the 'cut and pastes' are from the same source material.
My actual answer to the question was:
Possibly - but people clearly are agents of environmental change and considering the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution clearly predates the 1930's. Coupled with the fact that most proper records of climate change (ie. ice melt) seem to have been recorded from the late 20th century then it is entirely possible that early pollution and temps are linked.
or did you miss that?
Tronsky
-
Sunlight enters with all frequencies heating the earth. The earth radiates in the infrared. The Greenhouse gases absorb and reradiate that frequency range. Random chance over time reflects the energy back toward the earth reducing the amout chance lets back into space.
England is getting colder and storms are increasing in intensity, Alaskan Glaciers are ,melting and European Galcier are doing the same. Climate is following the computer models.
I don't live on the coast, do you?
HC
-
the average temperatue differences between am ice age and a warm age (is there a term for the opposite of an ice age?) are surprisinly small - about 8 - 10 degrees. that being said it is also important to note that the late 1800s were unusually cold (maybe somewhat due to krakatoa dust), sometimes called a mini ice age, so the temperature charts starting there are a bit misleading, as is calling penn state is non-political
-
20th century then it is entirely possible that early pollution and temps are linked.
So the conclusion is that is possible.......big deal.
It took you numerous threads to cut n paste an answer to a question you originally deemed "conjecture".
The answer to the question is irrelevant to me as I stated above. As it seems its just more "conjecture" then the original question.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hello:
When I read reports about new global warming evidence and rersearch I often see a statement like: "these are the highest temperatures ever seen in the area since the 19XX" or one on CNN.com now that says "Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s", as opposed to highest temperature on record statistics. Well doesnt this go against the argument they are making that these temperatures are unnnatural and due to recent modern human pollution if they were seen so long ago before the vast majority of human polluting activity?
Anyone?
Well, some people argue that there is a difference between raised average temperatures (something that would indicate global warming) and recorded high temperatures (something that has got nothing to do with global warming at all).
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, some people argue that there is a difference between raised average temperatures (something that would indicate global warming) and recorded high temperatures (something that has got nothing to do with global warming at all).
I'm glad you don't do math for living :)
Otherwise you would be jobless quite fast :p
-
What do you mean?
-
comparing average and maximun as no sense !
-
I am extremely glad that it appears that we have averted the inevitable ice age that was due here by now or within the next ten years... I have been biting my nails (and puncturing freon tanks) for thirty or more years ever since all the TV shows and Time magazine article on the coming ice age that was to be in full swing by now..
lazs
-
comparing average and maximun as no sense !
He didn't compare them, he specifically said they are two different measurements.
"One rank for the Dweeb Lord. One rank to rule them all. One rank to find them, atract them and hide them into darkness... "
Now THAT makes no sense.
-
When I read reports about new global warming evidence and rersearch I often see a statement like: "these are the highest temperatures ever seen in the area since the 19XX" or one on CNN.com now that says "Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s", as opposed to highest temperature on record statistics.
I know this can be read to assume that temps where this warm in 1930's (or 19xx whatever)
alot of times what this means is they didn't start recording temps in that area until the date given it doesn't nescasarily mean that it was actually this hot before.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hello:
When I read reports about new global warming evidence and rersearch I often see a statement like: "these are the highest temperatures ever seen in the area since the 19XX" or one on CNN.com now that says "Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s", as opposed to highest temperature on record statistics. Well doesnt this go against the argument they are making that these temperatures are unnnatural and due to recent modern human pollution if they were seen so long ago before the vast majority of human polluting activity?
Anyone?
If the "evidence" is posted as you wrote it, then you are correct, it isn't valid. This does NOT mean that Global Warming is not an issue, just that the question you wrote it is an example of incomplete information.
And that's about as close as I've ever come to agreeing with you that I can recall. --- Merry Christmas
:)
-
With every degree Kelvin earth temperature rises rate of evaporization of water increases three times as much as melting rate of ice.
If you do the quantum mechanics of absorbtion and reflection you'll find out that CO2 does not have the effect proposed using colorful pictures.
-
Originally posted by ra
He didn't compare them, he specifically said they are two different measurements.
"One rank for the Dweeb Lord. One rank to rule them all. One rank to find them, atract them and hide them into darkness... "
Now THAT makes no sense.
just ask my Spanish translator :)
-
The heat energy is trapped regardless of the evaporation of the oceans, the energy use to evaporate is still around. That system is a closed system and does not reduce the heat in the total system.
HC
-
MT I think we agreed on things before but recently you seem all pissed off at my incesseant provocations... :D
I'm pretty sure our pollution output is causing some real measurable warming but I just dont see much dramatic evidence to support some of equally dramatic claims of imminent disaster put out by so many radical environmentalists.
So I wonder when they say the things I was asking about.
Anyway merry christmas to you and your family! :D
-
Never was "pissed off". If it seemed like I was then it is my poor attempts at sarcasm.
-
I need to know if I still need to be puncturing freon cylinders in order to avert the ice age or have we manged to stave it off allready?
lazs
-
I'm frikkin freezing, keep puncturing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I need to know if I still need to be puncturing freon cylinders in order to avert the ice age or have we manged to stave it off allready?
lazs
lazs are you saying that the global surface temperature is not increasing at an increasing rate, the polar ice caps aren't melting and that glaciers are receeding at an unprecidented rate?
-
As far as I know in 70's they predicted the ice age by 2000 because of human-caused pollution.
Glaciers recede in one place but accumulate in others.
The "normal" climate in Europe is a huge anomaly - about 20 degrees celsius ~ 38F higher than it should be at those latitudes. Just compare it with Canada or Siberia. The reason for that is Gulfstream bringing enormous amount of heat north.
The Gulfstream has a built-in mechanism that causes it's disruption every few hundred of years followed by a local ice age.
The european glaciers and polar icecap accumulate during that mini-ice age time. The gulfstream restarts and it's salt water brings a lot of heat north, releases it into the athmosphere. The colder water sinks down and returns back and that is what keeps it going.
After a while the polar icecaps and Greenlang/Island glasiers melt and cover the area with few feet of fresh water. The gulfstream's dense salty water even though it is warmer, cannot get to the surface and release heat as well. So it does not sink. The gulfstream stops and the ice-age starts again. Nothing to do with humans or global warming.
miko
-
There is probably a Sun Heating Cycle related to 50k years of an ice age. This global warming is a new mechanism and we are in the middle of what is essentially a global experiment. What will happen if we dump huge amounts of Green House Gases into the atmosphere? We and the grandchildrn are about to find out..Lets watch!
HC
-
Miko, where are the glaciers progressing?
-
i am not reading all this ..
but i believe you are referring to the non-recorded data from the last 20,000 years.
were there warming trends ... were there cooling trends.
yes there were. the warmup that ended the ice age makes today's weather look like a freezer.
there are theroies about 5,000 year trends in temp. of the earth and we are hitting a high point they believe.
i do not have the data in fromt of me and it's real late but doa search for tempature trends or something and youll prob. find it.
oh well my 2¢
-
thrawn... are you saying that what is happening now is unprecedented? seems like the glacers must have receded at this rate at some time.. You could be right tho... could you please post the recorded temps and data for the last several thousand years?
Oh... could you tell me? Milk and eggs.... good or bad for me now?
lazs
-
Thrawn: Miko, where are the glaciers progressing?
Apparently the ice is accumulating in Antarctica - even faster than usuall - not the floating ice that does not displace water but the icecap on the solid ground.
Which would not be much surprise. The temperatures over the South Pole are lower that usuall - which is the cause for unusually large "ozone hole" die to formation of ice clouds at unusually high altitudes.
The ice also still accumulates in Greenland. I would not be surprise if it accumulated in Canada as well. Europe's glaciers are melting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaughn, D.G., Bamber, J.L., Giovinetto, M., Russell, J. and Cooper, A.P.R. 1999. Reassessment of net surface mass balance in Antarctica. Journal of Climate 12: 933-946.
The authors used more than 1800 published and unpublished in situ measurements of the surface mass balance of Antarctica to produce an updated assessment of yearly ice accumulation over the continent.
Their results indicate that the "total net surface mass balance for the conterminous grounded ice sheet is 1811 Gton yr-1 (149 kg m-2 yr-1) and for the entire ice sheet including ice shelves and embedded ice rises, 2288 Gton yr-1 (166 kg m-2 yr-1)."
The authors note that "these values are around 18% and 7% higher than the estimates widely adopted at present," which were derived about 15 years ago. Hence, they are indicative of the fact that net icefall on Antarctica may well be somewhat greater than what has been believed over the last decade and a half.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA: Each year, about 8 mm of water from the entire surface of the Earth’s oceans accumulates as snow on Greenland and Antarctica. The average ice accumulation on Greenland is about 26cm/yr and Antarctica about 16cm/yr (please note accumulation is in water amounts, or about 5 times greater in snowfall).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mosley-Thompson, E., L.G. Thompson, J.F. Paskievitch, M. Pourchet, A.J. Gow, M.E. Davis and J. Kleinman. 1995
South Pole snow accumulation has increased in recent decades
Annals of Glaciology, 21, 182-188.
This paper summarizes the 37-year history of net accumulation measurements at the geographic South Pole obtained by numerous investigators using a variety of techniques. These data lead to the conclusion that annual net snow accumulation has increased in the vicinity of South Pole Station since 1955... The results indicatie that annual net snow accumulation has increased in the vicinity of South Pole Station (SPS) by more than 20% in the last two decades.... Further, the accumulation increase at South Pole appears consistent with increases observed at other locations on the east Antarctic Plateau, and in the Peninsula region as well. These data suggest that the recent accumulation increase at South Pole Station (SPS) may be regionally extensive over the East Antarctic Plateau.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The Gulfstream has a built-in mechanism that causes it's disruption every few hundred of years followed by a local ice age.
Can you explain how that mechanism works? Its the first Ive heard of it, and I got curious. Also, I havent heard of any such mini ice age. The only thing coming close must be three harsh winters we had in 1600-something, but I think calling that an ice age is a bit of a stretch.
Sidenote: in 700-something (dont quote me on the exact year), something definitively happened over here though. Before that we had similar climate to the Med, it was even possible to grow grapes around where I live. Then, bam, over the cource of a couple of years, the climate changed to what it is now (lets just say that the grape-farmers are screwed around here).
-
The only thing coming close must be three harsh winters we had in 1600-something, but I think calling that an ice age is a bit of a stretch.
That was more like 150 harsh winters, it was a mini-iceage.
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/24/p16s2.htm
-
Hortlund: Can you explain how that mechanism works? Its the first Ive heard of it, and I got curious.
I've just did it a few posts above:
The european glaciers and polar icecap accumulate during that mini-ice age time. The gulfstream restarts and it's salt water brings a lot of heat north, releases it into the athmosphere. The colder water sinks down and returns back and that is what keeps it going.
After a while the polar icecaps and Greenlang/Island glasiers melt and cover the area with few feet of fresh water. The gulfstream's dense salty water even though it is warmer, cannot get to the surface and release heat as well. So it does not sink. The gulfstream stops and the ice-age starts again.
More accurately would be not just european but arctic glaciers. There is plenty of info on the web - just do a search on Gulfstream and related terms.
You may want to search for a term 'halocline' or 'polar halocline catastrophe' too.
Also, I havent heard of any such mini ice age. The only thing coming close must be three harsh winters we had in 1600-something, but I think calling that an ice age is a bit of a stretch.
Sometimes it's called "Little Ice age" and it covers a bit more than three harsh winters - more like 300. Plenty of info on the web too.
For about 400 years, much of the earth's climate inexplicably warmed up - a time now known as the Medieval Warm Period. Temperatures may have averaged 2 to 3 degrees C higher than today.
Sea ice off the coast of Iceland nearly vanished for three centuries. The effects seem to have spread to North America, where in AD 900 Eskimos settled Ellesmere Island at the usually frigid northwest corner of Greenland. In Alaska, a warming trend was detected. And in the Rocky Mountains, the new warmth pushed the snow line about 1,000 feet higher than where it stands today.
Then a chill set in. Slowly at first. People didn't want to believe it. Farmers were reluctant to give up their new fields. Settlers on Greenland held on for as long as possible. But the steadily expanding cold was irresistible by the 1200s. Unspeakable hardships began to take hold in much of the world. In Iceland, extensive grasslands that had supported sheep, goats, and cattle from AD 874 had receded by 1200. Farming became so difficult that Icelanders turned to fishing and the hunting of seals to support themselves. The population fell sharply.
By the late 1500s, temperatures continued to plunge, and the Little Ice Age firmly gripped much of the world.
Life changed for millions of people. In Europe, there was immense suffering. Crops failed. The poor grew poorer. Infanticide and abortion increased as families ran out of food. Several Eskimos, driven south by ice, paddled as far as Scotland. The Thames River at London froze frequently in the 1600s. "Frost fairs" atop the Thames became common in the 1700s, and in 1820 it was so cold that river ice was reported as five feet thick.
By 1700, Iceland was surrounded with sea ice that made commerce with the rest of the world hazardous. And in faraway China, citrus groves that had survived for centuries froze in Jiangxi province. The Little Ice Age lasted anywhere from 400 to 700 years. Exact dates are uncertain. There were no thermometers during much of this period. Some suggest it didn't end until around 1900.
miko
-
`
-
So it really does appear that all my 8 mpg hot rodding has been rewarded with the slowing of the inevitable ice age and the returning to normal tempretures eh? If you were any kind of a guy you would send me a rebate. Well... I'm off to the wrecking yard to cut some r34 air conditioner hoses.
still tho thrawn... I'm sure you know... milk and eggs.... good or bad?
lazs