Jump to content

What ocean heating reveals about global warming


Recommended Posts

The fossil fuel industry's front groups and their astroturfed cult of AGW denial have made a big deal out of the slightly slower rate of surface temperature warming over the last decade or so by proclaiming that global warming has ceased. This is the usual tactics of using cherry picked scientific data coupled with pseudo-science, distortions, misdirection and outright lies to attack the necessary global efforts to curb carbon emissions, since such restrictions would also cut their profits from selling the stuff that is altering our climate. Notice that the deniers always falsely claim that it hasn't warmed since 1997-98, ignoring the fact that that 1998 was an unusually hot year due to the strongest El Nino on record on top of a strong solar maximum plus other natural cyclic climate factors and the effect of the ozone reduction pact. In fact, even just looking at the surface air temperature record, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record and 2010 is currently tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. But the real issue that the FFI propagandists want everybody to ignore is the fact that the Earth's oceans are absorbing over 90% of the extra heat that the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is retaining. The Earth has not stopped warming...just the opposite actually...global warming has, in fact, been still accelerating. More of the excess heat has gone into the oceans recently than has gone into the atmosphere due to prolonged and repeated La Nina events in the Pacific that pull colder water to the surface and transfer warmer water to the ocean depths.

Here is an excellent article from one of the premier science based climate info websites, written by actual climate scientists, describing what is happening now.

What ocean heating reveals about global warming

by Stefan Rahmstorf - physicist, oceanographer, climate scientist
RealClimate
25 September 2013

The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.

NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans. For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:

heat_content2000m.png
Change in the heat content in the upper 2000 m of the world’s oceans. Source: NOAA

The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there (you can read more about this in the last IPCC report from 2007). The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.

If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.

If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.

The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.

The data in the graphs comes from the World Ocean Database. Wikipedia has a fine overview of this database. The data set includes nine million measured temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans. One of my personal heroes, the oceanographer Syd Levitus, has dedicated much of his life to making these oceanographic data freely available to everyone. During the Cold war that even landed him in a Russian jail for espionage for a while, as he was visiting Russia on his quest for oceanographic data (he once told me of that adventure over breakfast in a Beijing hotel).

How to deny data

Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics” know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements. Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible” – the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’” web sites even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes is the same as that from each individual one. Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester. Anything goes when you have to deny global warming. Even more bizarre is the Star Trek argument – but let me save that for later.

Slowdown in the upper ocean

Let us look at the upper ocean (for historic reasons defined as the upper 700 m):

heat_content55-07.png
Change in the heat content of the upper 700 m of the oceans. Source: NOAA

And here is the direct comparison since 1980:

Abraham_2013.png
Changes in the heat content of the oceans. Source: Abraham et al., 2013. The 2-sigma uncertainty for 1980 is 2 x 1022 J and for recent years 0.5 x 1022 J

We see two very interesting things.

First: Roughly two thirds of the warming since 1980 occurred in the upper ocean. The heat content of the upper layer has gone up twice as much as in the lower layer (700 – 2000 m). The average temperature of the upper layer has increased more than three times as much as the lower (because the upper layer is only 700 m thick, and the lower one 1300 m). That is not surprising, as after all the ocean is heated from above and it takes time for the heat to penetrate deeper.

Second: In the last ten years the upper layer has warmed more slowly than before. In spite of this the temperature still is changing as rapidly there as in the lower layer. This recent slower warming in the upper ocean is closely related to the slower warming of the global surface temperature, because the temperature of the overlaying atmosphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the ocean surface.

That the heat absorption of the ocean as a whole (at least to 2000 m) has not significantly slowed makes it clear that the reduced warming of the upper layer is not (at least not much) due to decreasing heating from above, but rather mostly due to greater heat loss to lower down: through the 700 m level, from the upper to the lower layer. (The transition from solar maximum to solar minimum probably also contributed a small part as planetary heat absorption decreased by about 15%, Abraham, et al., 2013). It is difficult to establish the exact mechanism for this stronger heat flux to deeper water, given the diverse internal variability in the oceans.

Association with El Niño

Completely independently of this oceanographic data, a simple correlation analysis (Foster and Rahmstorf ERL 2011) showed that the flatter warming trend of the last 10 years was mostly a result of natural variability, namely the recently more frequent appearance of cold La Niña events in the tropical Pacific and a small contribution from decreasing solar activity. The effect of La Niña can be seen directly in the following figure, without any statistical analysis. It shows the annual values of the global temperature with El Niño periods highlighted in red and La Niña periods in blue. (Weekly updates on the current El Niño situation can be found here.)

climcent_sat_enso.png
Global surface temperature (average of the three series from NOAA, NASA and HadCRU). Years influenced by El Niño are shown in red, La Niña influenced years in blue. Source: Climate Central, updated figure from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) p. 15.

One finds that both the red El Niño years and the blue La Niña years are getting warmer, but given that we have lately experienced a cluster of La Niña years the overall warming trend over the last ten years is slower. This can be thought of as the “noise” associated with natural variability, not a change in the “signal” of global warming (as discussed many times before here at RealClimate).

This is consistent with the finding that reduced warming is not mainly a result of a change in radiation balance but due to oceanic heat storage. During La Niña events (with cold ocean surface) the ocean absorbs additional heat that it releases during El Niño events (when the ocean surface is warm). The next El Niño event (whenever it comes – that is a stochastic process) is likely to produce a new global mean temperature record (as happened in 2010).

Kevin Trenberth, who has recently published a paper on this topic, explains the increased heat uptake in the deep ocean:

The reason for the change is a specific change in the winds, especially in the subtropical Pacific, where the trade winds have become noticeably stronger. That altered ocean currents, strengthening the subtropical sea water circulation thus providing a mechanism to transport heat into the deeper ocean. This is related to the decadal weather pattern in the Pacific associated with the La Niña phase of the El Niño phenomenon.


New results from climate modelling

A study by Kosaka and Xie recently published in Nature confirms that the slowing rise in global temperatures during recent years has been a result of prevalent La Niña periods in the tropical Pacific. The authors write in the abstract:

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability tied specifically to a La Niña like decadal cooling.


They show this with an elegant experiment, in which they “force” their global climate model to follow the observed history of sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific. With this trick the model is made to replay the actual sequence of El Niño and La Niña events found in the real world, rather than producing its own events by chance. The result is that the model then also reproduces the observed global average temperature history with great accuracy.

There are then at least three independent lines of evidence that confirm we are not dealing with a slowdown in the global warming trend, but rather with progressive global warming with superimposed natural variability:
1. Our correlation analysis between global temperature and the El Niño Index.
2. The measurements of oceanic heat uptake.
3. The new model calculation of Kosaka and Xie.

Beam me up Scotty!

Now to the most amusing attempt of “climate skeptics” to wish these scientific results away. Their argument goes like this: It is not possible that warming of the deep ocean accelerates at the same time as warming of the upper ocean slows down, because the heat must pass through the upper layer to reach the depths. A German journalist put it this way:

"Winds can do a lot, but can they beam warm surface waters heated by carbon dioxide 700 meters further down?"


This argument reveals once again the shocking lack of understanding of basic physics in “climate skeptic” circles. First the alleged problem is lacking any factual basis – after all, in the last decades the upper layer of the oceans has warmed faster than the deeper (even if recently not quite as fast as before). What is the problem with the heat first warming the upper layer before it penetrates deeper? That is entirely as expected.

Second, physically there is absolutely no problem for wind changes to cool the upper ocean at the same time as they warm the deeper layers. The following figure shows a simple example of how this can happen (there are also other possible mechanisms).

thermocline.png

The ocean is known to be thermally stratified, with a warm layer, some hundreds of meters thick, lying on top of a cold deep ocean (a). In the real world the transition is more gradual, not a sharp boundary as in the simplified diagram. Panel ( B) shows what happens if the wind is turned on. The surface layer (above the dashed depth level) becomes on average colder (less red), the deep layer warmer. The average temperature changes are not the same (because of the different thickness of the layers), but the changes in heat content are – what the upper layer loses in heat, the lower gains. The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.

Incidentally, that is the well-known mechanism of El Niño: (a) corresponds roughly to El Niño (with a warm eastern tropical Pacific) while ( B) is like La Niña (cold eastern tropical Pacific). The winds are the trade winds. The figure greatly exaggerates the slope of the layer interface, because in reality the ocean is paper thin. Even a difference of 1000 m across the width of the Pacific (let’s say 10,000 km) leads to a slope of only 1:10,000 – which no one could distinguish from a perfectly horizontal line without massive vertical exaggeration.

Now if during the transition from (a) to ( B) the upper layer is heated by the greenhouse effect, its temperature could remain constant while that of the lower one warmed. Simple classical physics without beaming.

Beam me up Scotty! There is no intelligent life on this planet.

Links

Tamino provides his usual detailed analysis of the new study by Kosaka and Xie.

Dana Nuccitelli in the Guardian on the same paper with some further interesting aspects that I have not talked about here.

Another important point that is often forgotten in the discussion: The data hole in the Arctic that explains part of the reduced warming trend (maybe even more than previously thought).

And a reminder: The warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade, see Fig. 4 here), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be.

Recent Literature:

Levitus et al. (Geophysical Research Letters 2012). Documentation of the heat increase in the world’s oceans since 1955. Included are uncertainty analyses, maps of the measurement coverage and many illustrations of the regional and vertical distribution of the warming.

Balmaseda et al. (Geophysical Research Letters 2013) shows among other things that El Niño events are associated with a strong loss of heat from the oceans. As discussed above, during an El Niño the ocean loses heat to the surface because the surface of the ocean (see Fig. (a) above) is unusually warm. Further, during volcanic eruptions the ocean cools but for another reason: because volcanic aerosols shade the sun and thus the oceans are heated less than normal.

Guemas et al. (Nature Climate Change 2013) shows that the slower warming of the last ten years cannot be explained by a change in the radiative balance of our Earth, but rather by a change in the heat storage of the oceans, and that this can be at least partially reproduced by climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the models.

Abraham et al. (Reviews of Geophysics 2013). Very recent, wide ranging review of temperature measurements in the oceans with a detailed discussion of the accuracy of the data, planetary energy balance and the effect of the warming on sea levels.

(n accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 523
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think boxorocks actually thinks people read his excessively long copy n paste propaganda. Hell even the lefties don't read it. Basically with him it is same shit different day.

It's fairly common for retards like you, crimsonpanties, to imagine that everyone else is on your pathetically incompetent level but, in fact, most people have a longer attention span than a fruitfly (unlike you) and an IQ higher than room temperature (unlike you) so they can actually read and comprehend scientific information without a problem. Just because you can't manage to read anything longer than a matchbook cover doesn't mean everyone is as limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paid stooges for the fossil fuel industry and their "useful idiot" rightwingnut denier cultists are busy spreading the usual lies, pseudo-science, and propaganda to try to create doubt in the public mind on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming and it's associated climate changes. The same game the tobacco companies played long after the health risks of smoking were well established in the medical community. The problem of AGW is very real and threatens to undermine and destroy our civilization and our planet's bio-sphere. Our children and all future generations will be severely affected. But the greed-heads in the fossil fuel industry and the billionaire oil and coal barons, like the Koch brothers, are willing to sacrifice all that to protect their trillion dollar a year profit stream (just one oil corporation, ExxonMobil, had total revenues in 2012 equaling 453.123 billion dollars). Listen to the real scientists, not the fossil fuel industry front groups, shills and stooges who post on this forum.

No basis to deny global warming
Albuquerque Journal
By Mark Boslough
Physicist; Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Member, New Mexicans for Science and Reason
Sun, Oct 13, 2013
When I was a first-year graduate student at Caltech, my Ph.D. adviser published a paper called "Impact-induced energy partitioning." He asked how an asteroid's energy would change form if it collided with the Earth. He used computer models to estimate what fraction would go into lofting debris, heating, melting, vaporizing rocks, and so on.

This subject was not settled science then, and is still not. One thing is for sure, however. The laws of physics dictate that energy is conserved. If an asteroid is hurtling toward your city, you might not be concerned that scientists are not 100 percent certain about how its energy will be "partitioned."

Global warming is no different.

Another one of my professors was Richard Feynman. In his famous "Feynman Lectures" he had a chapter called "Conservation of Energy" in which he says:

"There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no exception to this law -- it is exact so far as we know. The law is called conservation of energy."

He imagined a child with toy blocks that are indestructible and can't be divided. His mother counts the blocks every day and discovers a phenomenal law -- no matter what he does with the blocks, there is always the same number at the end of the day.

One day there is a missing block, but she investigates and finds one under the rug. Another day the number comes up two short, but she discovers an open window and two blocks are outside.

Then a surplus occurs, but it turns out a friend came over and left some blocks.

After that, mom locks the window and bans visits, but eventually the count comes up short again. There's a toy box in the room but it's locked and only her son has the key. So she weighs it. The changes in weight correlate exactly to the missing blocks from day to day.

Then the weight stops changing, but the water level in the dirty bathtub starts going up and down in a way that is exactly proportional to the difference in missing blocks.

Feynman even provides the equations that mom uses, and he beats the analogy into our heads. The blocks are like energy, which is neither created nor destroyed.

His punchline is this: Energy has different forms, and there is a formula for each one. "If we total up the formulas for each of these contributions, it will not change except for energy going in and out."

Human-caused global warming is the inevitable consequence of this law of physics, because greenhouse gas pollution is causing more energy to come in than go out.

If the average surface temperature -- which is only one way to measure global warming -- doesn't go up every year, it's because the "blocks" are being hidden somewhere else, for now.

But energy changes forms, and sloshes back and forth between sub-systems. Ice will continue to melt and sea level will continue to rise as the water warms. A slowdown in one rate is compensated by a speedup in another until the cycle of natural variability reverses.

Scientists know that more energy is coming in than going out. We can measure it and there is no dispute.

Because of carbon pollution, the Earth is gaining energy at the rate of 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day of every year. And that rate is going up.

Not knowing exactly how energy is "partitioned" into its various forms at any given time is like not knowing how much melting an asteroid will cause, how small the pieces will be when a boiler explodes, how the victims of a drunk driver will die, or how many minutes it will take for the Titanic to sink.

Uncertainty in exactly how something happens does not translate into uncertainty that it is happening. There is no rational basis for denial of the reality, or the risks, of global warming.

And there is no excuse for ignoring it.


Mark Boslough is a physicist who uses computers to understand impacts, nuclear explosions and climate change.

 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for input on what caused them thar 3 K thick ice sheets to melt & end the past ice ages. An area as large as Europe - Russia - and China is now totally submerged due to ocean - sea levels rising 1,000s of years ago. What melted the ice? Could it be, since day one, our planet has gone through natural cycles, & will continue to go through natural cycles until the last gasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny how pogo had never heard of ocean warming, until this year when they came up with this new theory of where their global warming disappeared to?

 

Question 1: If the oceans are warming, why aren't we seeing the corresponding hurricanes that were promised, and why is the ice extent growing?

Question 2: If the el Nino is cooling the ocean by bringing the heat to the surface and dissipating it, why don't we see that warming in the atmosphere, or does it somehow just disappear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halfway through Nov. and temp. at night in central mass. down to low 20's. I know, Global warming. Didn't Time or Newsweek predict global cooling 20 or so years ago? If low 20's are here in middle of Nov. i dread what is coming in Jan.-Feb. Global Warming is driving up my heating bills and the winter is just beginning. Damn that Global Warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Record lows here again tonight, man made global warming is horse crap.

Yes, what we want to believe is much more accurate than millions of man-hours of research and discovery by experts.

 

 

Halfway through Nov. and temp. at night in central mass. down to low 20's. I know, Global warming. Didn't Time or Newsweek predict global cooling 20 or so years ago? If low 20's are here in middle of Nov. i dread what is coming in Jan.-Feb. Global Warming is driving up my heating bills and the winter is just beginning. Damn that Global Warming.

 

 

 

The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

 

How is it that intelligent human beings can be shown many times what AGW actually is, what the term means, and yet say "Well my thermomometer's down, so all that stuff must not be right"? Isn't that sort of like being told heat for the Earth comes from the Sun, then looking into the sky on an overcast day and saying "Well, I don't see any Sun, there must not be one?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, what we want to believe is much more accurate than millions of man-hours of research and discovery by experts.

Have you ever figured out why these researchers and "experts" keep adjusting the temps from the 1930's downward?

The OP cites the IPCC report, but that report also said we would see increased hurricanes and tornadoes, not to mention rising ocean levels and the loss of ice around the world.

 

None of these predictions have come true.

Like the track record of the Obama Administration when it comes to economics, they are a perfect record of missing their predictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the Democrat party was formed, any warming -cooling - freezing - thawing, was attributed to natural cycles ( you know the 3 K thick ice sheets that came and went time after time ); but after the founders of the KKK arrived, all the warming - cooling - freezing - thawing was attributed to Conservative Republicans. Go figure ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for input on what caused them thar 3 K thick ice sheets to melt & end the past ice ages. An area as large as Europe - Russia - and China is now totally submerged due to ocean - sea levels rising 1,000s of years ago. What melted the ice? Could it be, since day one, our planet has gone through natural cycles, & will continue to go through natural cycles until the last gasp.

Actually, jimboystupid, you've asked this same stupid question dozens of times and you've been given the answer dozens of times. So all you're doing here is demonstrating what a retarded troll you are.

 

By your insane logic, since forest fires were 100% the result of natural causes like lighting strikes for hundreds of millions of years, all forest fires now must absolutely be the result of natural causes and the seven billion humans living here now have never had any involvement with modern forest fires. It's really a shame that you are such a clueless moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ocean heating reveals about global warming

 

It reveals that the Totalitarian Left never runs out of bulls***.

 

What do we have here? Conjecture piled on top of a failed theory supported by faked data and outright lies.

 

Hey, I'm willing to give up my freedom on the basis of that. Who wouldn't? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It reveals that the Totalitarian Left never runs out of bulls***.

 

What do we have here? Conjecture piled on top of a failed theory supported by faked data and outright lies.

 

Hey, I'm willing to give up my freedom on the basis of that. Who wouldn't?

I guess that in that denier cult Bizarroworld you inhabit, RoachClammy, reality itself is a liberal hoax and all of the world's scientists are in a huge conspiracy to deceive you. LOLOLOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reveals that the Totalitarian Left never runs out of bulls***.

 

What do we have here? Conjecture piled on top of a failed theory supported by faked data and outright lies.

 

Hey, I'm willing to give up my freedom on the basis of that. Who wouldn't?

 

I guess that in that denier cult Bizarroworld you inhabit, RoachClammy, reality itself is a liberal hoax and all of the world's scientists are in a huge conspiracy to deceive you. LOLOLOL.

 

Hey moonbat, just weeks ago you vehemently denied that the Earth hadn't warmed in 13-14 years and called me names.

 

Even most on your side have admitted that.

 

You either lied or are psychotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My god; my own ignorant in-laws could have responded to this topic.

 

"If global warming is real, then why is it so cold?"

 

Because it's winter?

 

"The ice is coming back."

 

An ice shelf or glacier is an accumulation of millenia of snow. Once it's gone, it ain't coming back. Not in our lifetime, or our childrens, or our grandchildrens. If you don't want to believe what scientists are saying about disappearing glaciers and ice packs, look at the pictures.

 

"Where's all these hurricanes that are predicted?"

 

Bhola,Katrina, Sandy Hook, Haiyan, each a once in a century event.

 

So it goes. I'm sure ancient Greek philosophers were ridiculed for saying the earth is round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hey moonbat, just weeks ago you vehemently denied that the Earth hadn't warmed in 13-14 years and called me names.

 

Even most on your side have admitted that.

 

You either lied or are psychotic.

I'm afraid that it is you who is the psychotic liar, RoachClammy.

 

The Earth has indeed continued to warm over the last decade and a half. In fact, the warming has accelerated. Your naive (read retarded) belief in the myths of your little cult of reality denial is hilarious and very pathetic.

 

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms

 

By Dana Nuccitelli

(excerpt)

 

A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.

  • Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
  • As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
  • Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
  • The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...