Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse

And scientist start from data. The only right way to do it. No data, no theory. Just brainfarts. Data is the basic stuff. Not what ifs, not brainstorms. Those are nice as fiction but in science they are useless.

You are dismissing conclusions from scientists who work for years to collect and analyse data in favour of a brainstorm.

I'm not and never will defend the loonies on either side of the debate. Not the denyers who roll their eyes at good science and go: it must be the sun, magnetic field, cowfarts, vulcanoes, etc etc, nor the alarmists who do exacly the same. Don't try to lump me in with either.
 
there is a scientific "conclusion" that says we're about to head into a 30-40 year cooling period as the sun radiates slightly less. Oh wait, that would be from loons and deniers...
 
Show me your source. Meanwhile I'll show you one of mine.

American Association of State Climatologists (pdf),

Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change
by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)*
This statement provides the perspective of the AASC on issues of climate variability and change. Since the AASC members work directly with users of climate information at the local, state and regional levels, it is uniquely able to put global climate issues into the local perspective needed by the users of climate information. Our conclusions are as follows:

1. Past climate is a useful guide to the future – Assessing past climate conditions provides a very effective analysis tool to assess societal and environmental vulnerability to future climate, regardless of the extent the future climate is altered by human activity. Our current and future vulnerability, however, will be different than in the past, even if climate were not to change, because society and the environment change as well. Decision makers need assessments of how climate vulnerability has changed.

2. Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. These components include the oceans, land, lakes, and continental ice sheets, and involve physical, biological, and chemical processes. The complicated feedbacks and forcings within the climate system are the reasons for the difficulty in accurately predicting the future climate. The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.

3. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate. Climate is always changing on a variety of time scales and being prepared for the consequences of this variability is a wise policy.

4. In their interactions with users of climate information, AASC members recognize that the nation’s climate policies must involve much more than discussions of alternative energy policies – Climate has a profound effect on sectors such as energy supply and demand, agriculture, insurance, water supply and quality, ecosystem management and the impacts of natural disasters. Whatever policies are promulgated with respect to energy, it is imperative that policy makers recognize that climate – its variability and change – has a broad impact on society. The policy responses too should also be broad.

Thus, to address the issues of climate variability and change, modernizing and maintaining high quality long-term climate data must be a high priority in order to permit careful monitoring. With the rapid dissemination of these data, State Climate Offices, as well as the Regional Climate Center Offices, and the National Climatic Data Center can better monitor emerging climate threats to critical national resources, such as our water supply, agriculture, and energy needs. The climate data must include all-important components of the climate system (e.g., temperature, precipitation, humidity, vegetation health and soil moisture). We also recommend that the nation strengthen its local, state, and regional climate services infrastructure in order to develop greater support capabilities for those decision makers who have to respond to climate variability and change.

Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate; the AASC is working to turn that potential into reality.

Approved by AASC in November, 2001
This is a scientific conclusion I can get behind. It's from the AASC.

Who are they?

http://www.stateclimate.org/about/

Founded in 1976, the American Association of State Climatologists is a professional scientific organization composed of state climatologists (one per state), directors of the six Regional Climate Centers and associate members who are persons interested in the goals and activities of the Association. State Climatologists are individuals who have been identified by a state entity as the state's climatologist and who are also recognized by the Director of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as the state climatologist of a particular state.

State Climatologists currently exist in 47 states and Puerto Rico. They are typically either employees of state agencies or are staff members of state-supported universities. Associate members may be assistant state climatologists or other climatologists under the employ of the state climatologist; representatives of federal climate agencies; retired state climatologists; or others interested in climate services. The total membership of the Association is approximately 150.

Members work closely with other climate services partners including NCDC, the NOAA Regional Climate Centers, and the National Weather Service. A strong partnership with these organizations is being nourished. This activity helps provide improved climate services for the nation through greater integration of data quality control, improved communication among the sector, and more coordinated referral of customer inquiries.

Go ahead.
 
there is a scientific "conclusion" that says we're about to head into a 30-40 year cooling period as the sun radiates slightly less. Oh wait, that would be from loons and deniers...
That's the thing, Zerk. If it comes out of the mouth of a denier (or even a doubter such as myself) it MUST be false. Dissent is not tolerated.

They say they tolerate dissent, but their actions say otherwise.

I always start out by explaining the known facts, and explaining how my hypothetical conclusions can be drawn from them. It's only global warming alarmists who ever argue against them. Everybody else either goes "yeah, maybe" or doesn't care. :)
 
Well, its funny when I get accused of being a denier or whatever. I hope global warming is fact, I welcome it! I hope we can alter the atmosphere to moderate ice ages.
 
You brought Venus up, not me. I just explained why you cannot compare Venus to Earth and you think that aint relevant - it is. The fact you dont know that speaks volumes...
You stated two specific differences between the two planets, you have now twice failed to tell me why these differences are relevant to a discussion of Terran cclimate change...
Greenhouse gases will also act to prevent that heat from getting out. So there ya have it. The Sun may not even be a factor--the thicker blanket of carbon dioxide may be warming the planet up from the inside.
Good grief no. :eek: :rolleyes: The Earth's crust is an extremely good insulator, that means that the rate at which heat flows from the interior of the planet to the surface is very slow, far slower than the rate at which energy for the sun is coming in and going out. That's why the mantle is still molten just a few tens of miles down after billions of years.
Venus' carbon dioxide blanket is thousands of times thicker than Earth's.

Yet Venus is not thousands of times hotter. It's about three times hotter. What this shows is that as you pour more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, each successive cubic kilometer warms the planet less than the previous cubic kilometer.
No no no. You show your fundamental ignorance again: The hotter an object is compared to it's surroundings the faster the flow of heat to those surroundings, as Venus heats up it will also emit more heat until it achieves an equilibrium at a higher temperature. Doubling the energy input absolutely does not double the temperature.
The Sun emits at just about every frequency--there is a substantial amount of heat coming in, and CO2 does prevent a lot of that from getting in. What happens is this: when sunlight hits the ground, some of it gets absorbed. The laws of physics state that energy emitted will always be at a lower frequency than it was when it was absorbed see laser cooling, so when it comes back out it's going to be closer to (or in) the infrared range. That infrared radiation will have trouble getting out.

It's all a question of how much gets in/out and how much is blocked.
Well you're actually correct for once (with a minor exception I wouldn't expect you to know about). The important thing is that some energy is trapped. That can only have a net heating effect.
http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf

Hmmmmmm what was that about consensus for man being the cause?
Scientific consensus. That report doesn't have a discernable scientific credential on it and surprise surprise it's from an 'independant think tank'. (sponsored largely by Philip Morris from the looks of it)

Wow, it's great reading too, an appeal for special status because it disagrees with the IPCC, a political attack on the IPCC... and this is just the preface. You know the more I respond to this gibberish the more it resembles the arguments for Intelligent Design.
Incoming solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 in the upper atmosphere and radiated back into space. Heat is prevented from getting in. I never said ALL of it is prevented from getting in. :king:
Your turn.
Greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases because they absorb the outgoing IR and let in the incoming UV and Visible light. And importantly CO2 is a greenhouse gas non-sequitur boy.
but you go way overboard. Brennan is even worse.
That's because every single post you make shows an elementary lack of understanding of basic science, is riddled with non-sequiturs and comes to bizarre conclusions, usually involving some extreme comparison that simply is not appropriate.

Basically you haven't a clue.
 
Our sister planet is still very useful in an important way.

According to Wikipedia, if it weren't for all that carbon dioxide in Venus' atmosphere, its surface temperature would not be significantly different from Earth's. So we have a single point of difference that we can use to examine the effect of increasingly dense greenhouse gas blankets.

Venus' atmosphere is not only almost entirely carbon dioxide, but it's a hundred times more dense than Earth's atmosphere. A one-mile an hour wind on Venus will blow you around like a tumbleweed. Venus' carbon dioxide blanket is thousands of times thicker than Earth's.

Yet Venus is not thousands of times hotter. It's about three times hotter. What this shows is that as you pour more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, each successive cubic kilometer warms the planet less than the previous cubic kilometer.

If the Earth didn't have any carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, it would be something like thirty degrees colder. Add two hundred parts per million of CO2 (which is about where the Earth was before humans came along), and you get thirty degrees of warming. But what Venus shows us is that if we humans add that same amount of CO2 again--another two hundred parts per million--we cannot get another thirty degrees of warming. You're going to get far less.


Venus disproves one of the basic mantras of global warming alarmists. We're getting diminishing returns from all the extra greenhouse gases we're spewing.

Basketcase, could you clarify the units you used for comparing Venus temp v Earth temp, I assume it was degrees Kelvin?

I have a physics/meterology type question related to this point of Basketcase's. Is the CO2 evenly spread through the different layers of Venus' atmosphere? And do the different layers absorb/emit energy the same?

IE, if the CO2 is concentrated in the lower atmospheric levels, it may not have the same effect on warming as CO2 in the upper atmosphere?

EDIT - A second point just came to me, assuming a diminishing return of CO2 on temperature then that would be a hyperbolic relationship of temp plotted against CO2. Does anyone have any idea where the Earth would be on that curve ie the more 'linear' like part of the curve, or nearer the top where it is getting saturated?
 
Well, its funny when I get accused of being a denier or whatever. I hope global warming is fact, I welcome it! I hope we can alter the atmosphere to moderate ice ages.
Amen to that. From everything I've read about climate, too warm is a lot more survivable than too cold.

But in the long run, what we really need to do is keep researching it to understand how climate change works. The ideal state for humanity would be the ability to edit the planet's climate to keep it just how we like it. And also prevent the next natural Extinction Level Event when it happens (not if--when).
 
jesus christ guys the earth is 0.006 C cooler than it was tomorrow al gore was right damn bush
 
Basketcase, could you clarify the units you used for comparing Venus temp v Earth temp, I assume it was degrees Kelvin?
I've always been using either the Celsius or the Kelvin scale (for the uninitiated: in both the C and the K scales, one degree is the same "size"--9/5 of a Fahrenheit degree--but on the C scale, 0 degrees is the freezing point of water, and on the K scale, 0 degrees is absolute zero). When I say Venus is "three times hotter" than Earth, that's degrees Kelvin. Earth's average temp is about 290 Kelvins. Venus, around 750 Kelvins.

I have a physics/meterology type question related to this point of Basketcase's. Is the CO2 evenly spread through the different layers of Venus' atmosphere?

IE, if the CO2 is concentrated in the lower atmospheric levels, it may not have the same effect on warming as CO2 in the upper atmosphere?
Since Venus' atmosphere is almost entirely CO2, I would say that's not worth worrying about. However, since the atmosphere will of course be densest at the surface, absorption is probably strongest down low.

Dr. Tiny scores ten points for actually giving a crap about science instead of some political agenda. :)
 
Our sister planet is still very useful in an important way.

According to Wikipedia, if it weren't for all that carbon dioxide in Venus' atmosphere, its surface temperature would not be significantly different from Earth's. So we have a single point of difference that we can use to examine the effect of increasingly dense greenhouse gas blankets.
I agree.

Venus' atmosphere is not only almost entirely carbon dioxide, but it's a hundred times more dense than Earth's atmosphere. A one-mile an hour wind on Venus will blow you around like a tumbleweed.
I think this is hyperbole, but never mind.
Venus' carbon dioxide blanket is thousands of times thicker than Earth's.
Venus surface pressure 9.3 MPa, atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth surface pressure 101.3 KPa, atmosphere 0.038% carbon dioxide. Something like 233 thousand times more carbon dioxide. Earth's surface area 500Mkm², Venus' surface area 460Mkm², about 250 thousand more carbon dioxide per km².

Yet Venus is not thousands of times hotter. It's about three times hotter. What this shows is that as you pour more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, each successive cubic kilometer warms the planet less than the previous cubic kilometer.
No, it does not. You are greatly oversimplifying. Several things are wrong:

FIRST: This is like looking at a water-covered planet and saying that each successive cubic kilometer of water poured on Earth would drown fewer people than the previous. Every successive km³ of water after you've covered the planet doesn't drown anyone, after all. What the above should be taken to show is that at some point where CO2 saturation has reached a level that we don't want to reach, the average amount of warming per km³ CO2 will be lower when summed across the huge amount you've added to get there. (Also, it's technically incorrect to speak of the CO2 as "warming" when it insulates, but meh. Like "hole", it's a handy linguistic term to have in this local context.)

SECOND: Energy emission in a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Planets aren't black bodies, but they're large and massive and spherical enough that it's a decent starting point for getting an idea of the relation between temperature and energy input/output. Three times as hot means 81 times as much energy radiated out. A black body subject to a constant source of radiation (e.g. one in vacuum orbit around the Sun) tends towards the temperature where it emits as much energy as it receives, and because of the fourth-power relationship, increasing the energy sent to a black body by a factor of five (e.g. adding another four suns) increases its temperature by less than 50%.
brennan said:
Doubling the energy input absolutely does not double the temperature.


THIRD: You are not taking into account the difference between inbound and outbound energy of various types. From this link:
As energy from the Sun passes through the atmosphere a number of things take place (see Figure 7h-1). A portion of the energy (26% globally) is reflected or scattered back to space by clouds and other atmospheric particles. About 19% of the energy available is absorbed by clouds, gases (like ozone), and particles in the atmosphere. Of the remaining 55% of the solar energy passing through the Earth's atmosphere, 4% is reflected from the surface back to space. On average, about 51% of the Sun's radiation reaches the surface.
[...]
The heating of the ground by sunlight causes the Earth's surface to become a radiator of energy in the longwave band (sometimes called infrared radiation). This emission of energy is generally directed to space (see Figure 7h-2). However, only a small portion of this energy actually makes it back to space. The majority of the outgoing infrared radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases (see Figure 7h-3 below).
[graph removed]
Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth's atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth's surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface."


FOURTH:If Venus heats up ten degrees, the change in surface albedo will be negligible, because the atmosphere is already so reflective, and the change in atmospheric albedo I will expect to be negligible too, because Venus has so little liquid and such a thick atmosphere. If Earth heats up ten degrees, on the other hand, we'll probably lose a great deal of snow and ice (albedo 80% on average across Antarctica) in favor of some or all of the following: ocean (3.5%), deciduous trees (13%), grass (20%), barrens (5% to 40%), desert (ca 25%). Even assuming the best of those, the change in albedo from 80% to 40% on some terrains means three times as much absorption. (Anyone who tries to divide 80% by 40% to get "twice as much" will be severely beaten with a clue stick.) Source: [wiki]Albedo[/wiki]. Hence, there will be a greater feedback effect on Earth than on Venus.

SIDE NOTE:
Spoiler :
As a follow-up to "planets aren't black bodies" above, Venus is the second brightest object in the night sky after the Moon, for a reason described in the second paragraph on the Wikipedia article: "Venus is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid". Venus has an albedo of 0.65 to Earth's 0.367. This may or may not be countered by the following: it is at a distance of 0.72 AU from the Sun (Earth is defined at 1). Hence it receives about twice the light but reflects twice as much. Figures for non-visible light spectrums will be different but are too difficult for me to find at the moment.


If the Earth didn't have any carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, it would be something like thirty degrees colder.
Seems correct on average.

Add two hundred parts per million of CO2 (which is about where the Earth was before humans came along), and you get thirty degrees of warming.
Again, an oversimplification and a few other mistakes. From the same site:
"A number of gases are involved in the human caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect (see Table 7h-1 below). These gases include: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); chlorofluorocarbons (CFxClx); and tropospheric ozone (O3). Of these gases, the single most important gas is carbon dioxide which accounts for about 55% of the change in the intensity of the Earth's greenhouse effect. The contributions of the other gases are 25% for chlorofluorocarbons, 15% for methane, and 5% for nitrous oxide. Ozone's contribution to the enhancement of greenhouse effect is still yet to be quantified.
[...]
Since 1750, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by more than 150%. The primary sources for the additional methane added to the atmosphere (in order of importance) are rice cultivation, domestic grazing animals, termites, landfills, coal mining, and oil and gas extraction."


But what Venus shows us is that if we humans add that same amount of CO2 again--another two hundred parts per million--we cannot get another thirty degrees of warming. You're going to get far less.
This is wrong, as I showed above at length.

Venus disproves one of the basic mantras of global warming alarmists. We're getting diminishing returns from all the extra greenhouse gases we're spewing.
Venus gives us no reason to assume a regular CO2-concentration-to-temperature relationship on the continuum between it and Earth.
 
BasketCase said:
According to Wikipedia, if it weren't for all that carbon dioxide in Venus' atmosphere, its surface temperature would not be significantly different from Earth's. So we have a single point of difference that we can use to examine the effect of increasingly dense greenhouse gas blankets.
Erik Mesoy said:


BasketCase said:
Venus' carbon dioxide blanket is thousands of times thicker than Earth's.
Erik Mesoy said:
Venus surface pressure 9.3 MPa, atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth surface pressure 101.3 KPa, atmosphere 0.038% carbon dioxide. Something like 233 thousand times more carbon dioxide. Earth's surface area 500Mkm², Venus' surface area 460Mkm², about 250 thousand more carbon dioxide per km².
Those sound like good approximations to me, and I see no reason to dispute them.

So we are in agreement thus far. All the above are facts, right?

Do we also agree that Venus is around three times hotter than Earth? (I got 750 Kelvins from Wikipedia)


Note from my first quote, above, that we changed ONE thing about the system. "If it weren't for all that carbon dioxide in Venus' atmosphere, its surface temperature would not be significantly different from Earth's". We are agreed on that. This is how experiments are supposed to be done: you change one factor at a time to observe what that single factor does.

If we agree on the facts so far, then what can we theorize from them? That warming via adding more and more carbon dioxide is non-linear. You get diminishing returns; adding a given amount of CO2 produces less warming each time you add that same amount again.


Erik Mesoy said:
If Earth heats up ten degrees, on the other hand, we'll probably lose a great deal of snow and ice (albedo 80% on average across Antarctica) in favor of some or all of the following: ocean (3.5%), deciduous trees (13%), grass (20%), barrens (5% to 40%), desert (ca 25%). Even assuming the best of those, the change in albedo from 80% to 40% on some terrains means three times as much absorption.
I mostly agree with this; heating up the planet will cause feedback effects that will lead to further warning. But each time the cycle repeats, the amount of extra warning must decrease until the cycle loops down to zero and the system stabilizes. And I disagree with the final result.

The Earth is dynamically stable. If it were not, the slightest change would cause it to tip out of balance. Something the Earth hardly ever does. If the planet were capable of a positive-feedback "runaway" we would have seen one. And we have not......as far as we know!

The Earth has, in fact, suffered five extremely deadly....."hiccups" in its climate system, where surface conditions changed drastically and exterminated almost all life on Earth. The classic story about a meteor impact only accounts for one or two of these. A sudden climate runaway, possibly caused by global warming, has been theorized as a possible cause of the others.

But these events have only occurred five times in BILLIONS of years. Plus, the Earth has had many periods where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now--without these Extinction Level Events occurring. The planet has gone along just fine for tens of millions of years at a time, with surface temperatures five to ten degrees warmer than now (Celsius) with life getting along just fine--in fact, better than fine. Plentiful. I'm talking green plants in Siberia.

Five climate runaways over billions of years of history. Those are called what?

Betting odds.
 
The Earth's climate is a dynamic system with a large number of 'stable' states. As with any chaotic system it can only take minor changes to flip from one state to another. Which state we will end up in is open to question, but since we are fairly happy with the rather benign state we have been in recently we are concerned about the outcome should we tip the balance.

And boy have we tipped the balance.
 
Those sound like good approximations to me, and I see no reason to dispute them.

So we are in agreement thus far. All the above are facts, right?

Do we also agree that Venus is around three times hotter than Earth? (I got 750 Kelvins from Wikipedia)
Yeah.


Note from my first quote, above, that we changed ONE thing about the system. "If it weren't for all that carbon dioxide in Venus' atmosphere, its surface temperature would not be significantly different from Earth's". We are agreed on that. This is how experiments are supposed to be done: you change one factor at a time to observe what that single factor does.
But you're changing the factor by a factor of about 250k!

If we agree on the facts so far, then what can we theorize from them? That warming via adding more and more carbon dioxide is non-linear. You get diminishing returns; adding a given amount of CO2 produces less warming each time you add that same amount again.
Here's an analogy of how your argument sounds to me: Tap a guy's knee with a rubber hammer weighing about one pound and going 1 m/s. He'll flex his knee, no damage. Then impact the same guy's knee with a rubber meteorite weighing one pound and going at 250 000 m/s. The knee will be severely damaged. So if you hit the knee with a rubber meteorite going at 10 000 m/s, the knee should only be 1/250 as damaged, right?

The rubber hammer is Earth. The high-speed rubber meteorite is Venus. The low-speed rubber meteorite is your suggestion of an Earth with lots more carbon dioxide, which, you think, will be affected very little "because the relationship is nonlinear". I disagree. I say that the nonlinearity is on my side, and it's the first increases that are by far the most important, and the later ones are less important. If we increase the CO2 concentration on Earth to double what it is now, the degree to which we are screwed, I say, will increase more than it will increase by our increasing the CO2 concentration by the same amount again afterwards (another 50%).

BasketCase said:
The Earth is dynamically stable.
It was, at least. We've been leaning on the balance for a long time.
BasketCase said:
If it were not, the slightest change would cause it to tip out of balance.
Correction: Any change beyond the tipping point towards the next stable state would cause it to tip out of balance. And we don't know how long it would take.
BasketCase said:
Something the Earth hardly ever does. If the planet were capable of a positive-feedback "runaway" we would have seen one.
That's complete crap. I might as well say: "If the galaxy were capable of harboring other sentient life, we would have seen some."
BasketCase said:
And we have not......as far as we know!
That may be because of the reverse anthropic principle: anything that sees a nuclear blast at close range, or lives in a positive-feedback "runaway" effect, is unlikely to tell the tale. :p For an example closer to home, rats with a pedal that stimulates their pleasure center die of starvation.
 
Y
Scientific consensus. That report doesn't have a discernable scientific credential on it and surprise surprise it's from an 'independant think tank'. (sponsored largely by Philip Morris from the looks of it)

:lol:

Discernible scientific credentials?

Dr. Fred S. Singer
That's the author. I could go down the list of all the other 22 scientists who participated but I don't want to embarrass you too much.

And whats so wrong with independent think tanks? Ohhhh thats right they are independent. They don't toe the alarmist line. They can't be right.

But thanks for attacking everything but the actual study and its conclusions. Its exactly what I would expect from someone as intellectually dishonest as you.

:lol:
 
And boy have we tipped the balance.

Have we? Whats your scientific credentials that we should believe you? :lol:

There are people who are real scientists that say you are wrong. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom