EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:34 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:55 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Dr. Richard P. Allan recently got a paper accepted that calculates that the cooling effect that clouds have on the Climate is approximately ~21 w/m^2. This is roughly 17X the value for doubled CO2, which is 1.2 w/m^2, which is just further proof that CO2 can be completely overwhelmed by just natural albedo changes alone.

Quote:
Exploiting satellite measurements and combining them with NWP models initialized through assimilation of available observations enables the effect of clouds on the Earth’s radiative energy balance at the surface and within the atmosphere to be quantified for the present day climate. Consistent with previous results (Ramanathan et al., 1989; Su et al., 2010), the cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation is found
to dominate over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21 Wm−2.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:51 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Dr. Richard P. Allan recently got a paper accepted that calculates that the cooling effect that clouds have on the Climate is approximately ~21 w/m^2. This is roughly 17X the value for doubled CO2, which is 1.2 w/m^2, which is just further proof that CO2 can be completely overwhelmed by just natural albedo changes alone.

Quote:
Exploiting satellite measurements and combining them with NWP models initialized through assimilation of available observations enables the effect of clouds on the Earth’s radiative energy balance at the surface and within the atmosphere to be quantified for the present day climate. Consistent with previous results (Ramanathan et al., 1989; Su et al., 2010), the cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation is found
to dominate over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21 Wm−2.


So just how accurate are those models? :-

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:11 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So just how accurate are those models? :-


Accurate enough to match what observational evidence has told us already.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So just how accurate are those models? :-


Accurate enough to match what observational evidence has told us already.


Sorry, but that paper is not even mentioned in the references, much less the models proved to be accurate or not.

I seem to remember discussions on climate model hindcasting being ignored as evidence of accuracy in the past.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:18 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Snowy123 wrote:
Dr. Richard P. Allan recently got a paper accepted that calculates that the cooling effect that clouds have on the Climate is approximately ~21 w/m^2. This is roughly 17X the value for doubled CO2, which is 1.2 w/m^2, which is just further proof that CO2 can be completely overwhelmed by just natural albedo changes alone.


Can be? Can I get a "is being" or at least a "has been"? You know, the sun going nova can overwhelm anything from high tide to dirty underwear.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Sorry, but that paper is not even mentioned in the references, much less the models proved to be accurate or not.

I seem to remember discussions on climate model hindcasting being ignored as evidence of accuracy in the past.


It's not a paper... it's basic measurements calculated from the ERBE Experiment. The fact that the models agree with the basic observations from ERBE and calculations by Dr. Roy Spencer probably indicates they are spot on.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:45 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
So this is basically a case of:
"Our models are correct: all the others aren't."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Fosgate wrote:

Can be? Can I get a "is being" or at least a "has been"? You know, the sun going nova can overwhelm anything from high tide to dirty underwear.


There is so much evidence that Clouds have completely overwhelmed the CO2 effect in the past, and are currently doing so. Let's start off with the basics, which is to figure out what is the dominant driver of the Climate System. Is it Anthropogenic CO2 or is it a natural cycle? To begin to determine this, we have to look at the equator for the monthly OLR that is escaping Earth's atmosphere. This is where we can look at OLR changes with the most accuracy, since the Tropics do not experience as much seasonal variation or albedo change as the NH or SH do, so to get rid of all of this noise that might influence the average OLR at the TOA we look at the Tropics.

Image

The Climate Models have predicted a "hot spot" for CO2 doubling to appear by the Tropics. This is because of the hypothesized positive water vapour and cloud feedback at the Tropics. However, none of this has been observed at all. In fact, we observe an increase in OLR at the Tropics, which could validate Lindzen, Hou, and Chou's hypothesis which is known as the "Iris effect." It bascially states that as the planet warms, Cirrus clouds will decrease, which would allow for more OLR to reach the TOA, and produce a negative feedback on Earth's Climate. Two new peer reviewed papers document strong negative feedback from Cloud Cover. (SOURCE) (SOURCE)

Quoting respectably from the papers:

Quote:
We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.


Quote:
The CAM-SP shows strongly negative net cloud feedback in both the tropics and in the extratropics, resulting in a global climate sensitivity of only 0.41 K/(W m-2), at the low end of traditional AGCMs (e.g. Cess et al. 1996), but in accord with an analysis of 30- day SST/SST+2K climatologies from a global aquaplanet CRM run on the Earth Simulator (Miura et al. 2005). The conventional AGCMs differ greatly from each other but all have less negative net cloud forcings and correspondingly larger climate sensitivities than the
superparameterization. The coarse horizontal and vertical resolution of CAM3-SP means that it highly under-resolves the turbulent circulations that produce boundary layer clouds. Thus, one should interpret its predictions with caution. With this caveat, cloud feedbacks are arguably more naturally simulated by superparameterization than in conventional AGCMs [conventional climate models], suggesting a compelling need to better understand the differences between the results from these two approaches.



Image

The OLR has increased roughly 4.5 w/m^2 per decade on average, since 1979. (SOURCE) This equates to roughly a 11-13 w/m^2 increase in OLR over this timeframe. It also indicates that something else other than CO2 is adding Energy to Earth's Energy Budget, since this roughly 10X CO2's RF since 1790.

The increase in OLR at the Tropics indicates that Cloud Cover may be most of the reason that OLR has increased by the Tropics, since when Clouds are subtracted from the Global Energy Flows, you get more Incoming Shortwave Radiation that reaches Earth's surface, thus warming Earth, and producing a continued increase in OLR. You get increasing OLR from two sources: decreasing Cloud Cover, since Clouds trap OLR and increasing ISR, which continually increases OLR.

Indeed, multiple sources have confirmed that albedo has decreased since the beginning of measuring the albedo, with one being the ISSCP, and the second being Earthshine.

Image

ISSCP has confirmed that Cloud Cover has decreased by roughly 4-5% from 1983-2000, which when Global Warming was occuring. Since then, Cloud Cover has flatlined, and Global Temperatures have followed suit, instead of increasing, like they should have if CO2 was the dominant driver of the Climate.

Image

The Earthshine experiment calculates albedo through reflected incoming shortwave radiation from albedo changes, that reflects off of the moon. More information on the Earthshine experiment can be found here: (LINK)

Through Dr. Phillip Goode and Dr. Enric Palle's calculations, they found that the albedo reconstruction is in very good agreement with ISSCP- that it has decreased substantially and has added several w/m^2 of energy to Earth's Energy Budget.

Image

The blue and black lines are albedo reconstructions, and the red line is the amount of Energy GHGs have added to Earth's Energy Budget since 1790. They are dwarfed entirely by just albedo changes alone. Albedo added 7-8 w/m^2 of Energy to Earth's Energy Budget up until 1790, which probably explains about all of the warming that took place during that time frame.

In their peer reviewed paper, the two solar scientists highlight that cloud variability is likely to account for Global Warming that occured during the late 20th Century. (SOURCE)

For a lay approach, Dr. Palle has put the Earthshine findings into one powerpoint slideshow.

Clouds act as a forcing and as a feedback. So how do we know that most of the decrease in Cloud Cover is simply not a product of warming temperatures, resulting in a positive feedback from increased Carbon Dioxide?

We know that most of the increase in temperature from clouds has not been a positive feedback, because water vapour has not increased at all. With a warmer Earth, the theory is that there will be less water vapour molecules that will be able to condense into Clouds because the planet heats up. You would find a surplus of moisture in the air, if this were to be the case. But you don't.

Image

The graph above is from the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) and shows that over the course of the years, there has been a negative water vapour anomaly that has begun to show up in recent years- meaning that water vapour is decreasing, and that the water cycle is slowing down, contrary to the positive feedback hypothesis, where the water cycle should speed up.

But what could be impacting Clouds if the decrease in Cloud Cover is not due to a positive feedback from warming?

Galactic Cosmic Rays are likely causing the decrease in Cloud Cover, and there is so much evidence that points to Cosmic Rays as being the primary driver of cloud cover changes.

Just this year, the CERN experiment has proven that Cosmic Rays can alter aerosol production.

Image

The graph above from Kirkby et. al 2011, show that as more and more Cosmic Rays impact the air, more and more aerosoles are produced, which are the seedlings to cloud formations. When a water vapour molecule condenses on an aerosol, you get a cloud. More of these aerosoles would mean that more clouds would form, and thus, more GCRs have a cooling influence on Earth.

But the most damning piece of evidence that Cosmic Rays are the primary drivers of Cloud Cover are from the FD evidence.

Forbush Decreases occur when high amounts of Coronal Mass Ejections cause there to be sudden subtantially less amounts of GCRs than normal. If GCRs are the primary drivers of Climate Change, you would expect a 5-10 day lag with the amount of aerosoles in the atmosphere after a Forbush decrease. And this is what observational evidence is saying.

Image

The dashed line from Svensmark 2009is the GCR count and the solid blue line is the aerosol number. A short lag in Global aersoles can clearly be seen right after a Forbush Decrease, which indicates a significant CR-Influence on climate, if Forbush Decreases can have that much of an impact on aerosoles.

In addition, we have this new paper, which is the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of evidence that supports a CR-Influence on Climate.

From the conclusions:

Quote:
The superposed epoch analysis confirmed the statistically
significant influence of CR intensity decrease on the state of
the atmosphere. The effect is visible only if FDs exceeding
the threshold (7% amplitude with the Mt. Washington data)
are considered. The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.


Image

The group of physicists found that daytime temperatures are increasing faster than daytime temperatures with Forbush decreases, which strongly supports the CR driving Cloud Cover driving Climate Theory. This is because clouds reflect ISR in the daytime, cooling off daytime temperatures, and trap LWR at night. With decreases in Cloud Cover, you would get daytime temperatures warming faster than nighttime temperatures, which would get you a larger diurnal temperature change, and this is what has been observed.

There is even more evidence than this for example, that climate sensitivity is low, but I just gave you a taste of all of the evidence that is out there that supports that about all of the climate change that occured in the late 20th Century- the timeframe where CAGW scientists say that this is where natural cycles can no longer explain Global Warming.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:08 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Iowanic wrote:
So this is basically a case of:
"Our models are correct: all the others aren't."


If the CAGW models somehow met direct observations, then they would be accurate. They don't because the Climate Models that show that only anthropogenic forcings can account for the late-20th Century Global Warming miss crucial factors, such as ENSO, the PDO, AMO, IOD, Cloud Feedback, Cloud Forcing, Ozone Depletion due to Volcanism, and even Dust. The model includes forcings that never drove climate in the past- TSI, Volcanism and CO2. The model assumes that since CO2 rises, then the temperature would go up, and therefore it is indisputable that the Late-20th Century Global Warming was anthropogenic.

As atmospheric scientist Dr. A.T.J. De Laat points out, this is a logical fallacy by these climate models.

Quote:
The line of reasoning here is that natural factors alone cannot explain the observed twentieth-century temperature variations, while including greenhouse gases does. The logical fallacy is the ‘fallacy of false dilemma/either-or fallacy,' that is, the number of alternatives are (un)intentionally restricted, thereby omitting relevant alternatives from consideration (Haskins 2006)," de Laat wrote. "That global twentieth-century temperature variations can be explained by using a simple model merely points to a certain consistency between this model or climate model simulations and observations. Furthermore, the fact that the late-twentieth-century warming is unexplained by two factors (solar variations and aerosols) and can be explained by including a third factor (greenhouse gases) does not prove that greenhouse gases are the cause; it just points to a missing process in this model," he explained. "In fact, this whole line of reasoning does not prove the existence of global warming; it is merely consistent with it. As an example, it is still debated whether or not land surface temperature changes during the twentieth century are affected by anthropogenic non-greenhouse gas processes and whether or not these processes affect surface temperatures on a global scale (Christy et al. 2006; Kalnay et al. 2006; de Laat and Maurellis 2006). There is a risk associated with this line of reasoning in that it suggests that understanding temperature variations of the climate system as a whole is very simple and completely understood, all one has to consider is the amount of incoming and outgoing radiation by changes in atmospheric absorbers and reflectors," he added. "Notwithstanding the fact that temperature is not a conserved quantity in any physical system, and thus is not the best metric to study energy within the climate system, it also suggests that other processes and nonlinear behavior of the climate system are either nonexistent or do not affect (decadal and global) temperature variations. Presenting climate science this way oversimplifies the complexity of the climate system and possibly overstates our current understanding," he concluded.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:12 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Sorry, but that paper is not even mentioned in the references, much less the models proved to be accurate or not.

I seem to remember discussions on climate model hindcasting being ignored as evidence of accuracy in the past.


It's not a paper... it's basic measurements calculated from the ERBE Experiment.


Yes, but the paper being discussed was not mentioned in that "set of measurements" nor was there any support showing any models being shown correct or otherwise.

Quote:
The fact that the models agree with the basic observations from ERBE and calculations by Dr. Roy Spencer probably indicates they are spot on.


Given there is nothing listed for the models realted to the paper or otherwise, you seem to have leaped to a conclusion without the benefit of supporting evidence being provided.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:19 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
So this is basically a case of:
"Our models are correct: all the others aren't."


If the CAGW models somehow met direct observations, then they would be accurate. They don't because the Climate Models that show that only anthropogenic forcings can account for the late-20th Century Global Warming miss crucial factors, such as ENSO, the PDO, AMO, IOD, Cloud Feedback, Cloud Forcing, Ozone Depletion due to Volcanism, and even Dust. The model includes forcings that never drove climate in the past- TSI, Volcanism and CO2. The model assumes that since CO2 rises, then the temperature would go up, and therefore it is indisputable that the Late-20th Century Global Warming was anthropogenic.

As atmospheric scientist Dr. A.T.J. De Laat points out, this is a logical fallacy by these climate models.

Quote:
The line of reasoning here is that natural factors alone cannot explain the observed twentieth-century temperature variations, while including greenhouse gases does. The logical fallacy is the ‘fallacy of false dilemma/either-or fallacy,' that is, the number of alternatives are (un)intentionally restricted, thereby omitting relevant alternatives from consideration (Haskins 2006)," de Laat wrote. "That global twentieth-century temperature variations can be explained by using a simple model merely points to a certain consistency between this model or climate model simulations and observations. Furthermore, the fact that the late-twentieth-century warming is unexplained by two factors (solar variations and aerosols) and can be explained by including a third factor (greenhouse gases) does not prove that greenhouse gases are the cause; it just points to a missing process in this model," he explained. "In fact, this whole line of reasoning does not prove the existence of global warming; it is merely consistent with it. As an example, it is still debated whether or not land surface temperature changes during the twentieth century are affected by anthropogenic non-greenhouse gas processes and whether or not these processes affect surface temperatures on a global scale (Christy et al. 2006; Kalnay et al. 2006; de Laat and Maurellis 2006). There is a risk associated with this line of reasoning in that it suggests that understanding temperature variations of the climate system as a whole is very simple and completely understood, all one has to consider is the amount of incoming and outgoing radiation by changes in atmospheric absorbers and reflectors," he added. "Notwithstanding the fact that temperature is not a conserved quantity in any physical system, and thus is not the best metric to study energy within the climate system, it also suggests that other processes and nonlinear behavior of the climate system are either nonexistent or do not affect (decadal and global) temperature variations. Presenting climate science this way oversimplifies the complexity of the climate system and possibly overstates our current understanding," he concluded.



Now apply this same logical fallacy statement to your favorite theories and you should see the same application will apply. If you do not admit it you are risking a hypocritical stance.

Change GHG to clouds in the statement you quoted and you will see your problem.

Furthermore, the fact that the late-twentieth-century warming is unexplained by two factors (solar variations and aerosols) and can be explained by including a third factor (greenhouse gases) does not prove that greenhouse gases are the cause; it just points to a missing process in this model," he explained.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:36 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Fosgate wrote:

Can be? Can I get a "is being" or at least a "has been"? You know, the sun going nova can overwhelm anything from high tide to dirty underwear.


In addition, we have this new paper, which is the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of evidence that supports a CR-Influence on Climate.

From the conclusions:

Quote:
The superposed epoch analysis confirmed the statistically
significant influence of CR intensity decrease on the state of
the atmosphere. The effect is visible only if FDs exceeding
the threshold (7% amplitude with the Mt. Washington data)
are considered. The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.



The rest of the conclusion:

The superposed epoch analysis confirmed the statistically
significant influence of CR intensity decrease on the state of
the atmosphere. The effect is visible only if FDs exceeding
the threshold (7% amplitude with the Mt. Washington data)
are considered. The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.
The natural variability of atmospheric parameters makes the
CR contribution difficult to detect
. The DTR appears to be
a useful quantity to consider in connection with CR intensity,
avoiding some of the difficulties associated with satellite
measurements of cloudiness. The present study should
be considered as a preliminary one. Several consequences of
DTR-CR connection remain to be tested:
- DTR vs. FD behavior in different regions of the Earth
- DTR vs. CR increase if sufficient statistics are available.
On the basis of the present result, the response opposite

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:37 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, but the paper being discussed was not mentioned in that "set of measurements" nor was there any support showing any models being shown correct or otherwise.



Because the paper was released after the ERBE measurements were released...

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Now apply this same logical fallacy statement to your favorite theories and you should see the same application will apply. If you do not admit it you are risking a hypocritical stance.

Change GHG to clouds in the statement you quoted and you will see your problem.


The only problem with this, is that my argument has many facts to back the notion that Clouds have driven the climate over the past thirty years, as I explain here, so it is not a logical fallacy.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:49 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
[b]The natural variability of atmospheric parameters makes the
CR contribution difficult to detect
. T The present study should
be considered as a preliminary one. Several consequences of
DTR-CR connection remain to be tested:


You quote this from the conclusions, as if it disproves the section that I quoted from the conclusions, when it does not at all. The Climate System is naturally chaotic, and there are multiple dynamical processes that may hide the CR effect, which is why with Forbush Decreases, you can see the CR effect the clearest, and it is as clear as a pure cup of water.

The CR Theory is still relatively new, which is why more studies need to be conducted, but this study points that more evidence has been found for a CR Influence on Climate while studying Forbush Decreases, as clearly stated in the conclusions.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group