|
| Thread: I gave up on believing in Climate Change. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
posted August 19, 2009 10:45 AM |
|
Edited by Rarensu at 10:56, 19 Aug 2009.
|
Humans didn't start pumping massive carbon into the atmosphere until 1930. Glaciers have been melting since 1830. When we started pumping massive carbon into the atmosphere in 1930, the glacial melting did not accelerate.
Mars is also currently experiencing polar melting. I doubt that earth-bound greenhouse gasses are to blame for that.
.jpg)
What are these so-called greenhouse gasses, anyway?
CO2 is the number two greenhouse gas. Only 0.11% of it is man-made.
The number one greenhouse gas? Clouds.
I'm hoping Zeitgeist will do one on Climate.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 19, 2009 11:01 AM |
|
|
I have to agree with Corribus on this one. It is a matter of better safe then sorry.
As for weather, all I know is that weather has been rather 'crazy' here for the last couple of years (about 5ish?). This year I don't think we actually had a summer. It was raining and cold the whole time. A few days of 90 ( weather so far, but by mid August I am used to weeks of 100 (both Fahrenheit) straight. Rarely does it ever fall below 80 during summer. Add to that multiple tornadoes (I think so far there have been three times the normal ammount, not sure) and things have been kinda weird.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 19, 2009 01:53 PM |
|
|
There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.*
There is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny.
The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978. If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.
Our solar system has eight planets, three dwarf planets and quite a few moons with at least a rudimentary atmosphere, and thus a climate of sorts. Their climates will be affected by local factors such as orbital variations, changes in reflectance (albedo) and even volcanic eruptions, so it would not be surprising if several planets and moons turn out to be warming at any one time.
As for the water vapor part, I believe I already covered that.
It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources of CO2. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions.
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year. About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
* New Scientist
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 19, 2009 01:55 PM |
|
|
In response to The Deaths comments:
Quote:
So let me get this straight: you dismiss the global warming as a false belief, and all data/statistics that shows it's true must be fake, yet you post your statistics afterwards?
Speaking of religion, isn't that like saying Christianity is false but Islam is true?
I don't like the phrase "false belief". You could argue that beliefs cannot be true or false; I simply stated that anthropogenic climate forcing is a belief, and not a fact.
As for the statistics, I did not post "my statistics".
The first graph is a rebuttal to the "hockey stick" chart by Mann et al, which was proven to be false through rigorous investigation and trial. At first Mann et al refused to cooperate and provide their data for the investigation but they were forced to by law, and their graph is shown to ignore the Medieval warm period. The graph provided is the amended version.
The second graph is one of solar cycle length and by proxy solar activity. This is not contrary to IPCC or climate change believers, it is simply just additional information, albeit largely ignored by IPCC.
Quote:
Isn't that true for most science nowadays? When was the last time you questioned your computer for giving you a wrong result?
Scepticism, and the questioning of results is the basis of science. Models are made, and if they don't fit the observations, or if counter evidence is found, they must be revised.
That is the difference between the observed data and the models, very different statistics, not like a religion.
Not one of the models used by the IPCC predicted the cooling after 1998. If they can't predict a few years into the future, what use are predictions decades and centuries into the future?
Throughout history many ideas have become too popular; it is unhealthy. That is my viewpoint. It is better to stand back and think about it.
In the 70s everyone was crying about Global Cooling, in the exact same way as they do now about Warming, just because we had some natural cooling leading up to the 70s. Look at this quote:
'Global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for 110,000 years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance: the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.'
-Climatologist Stephen Schneider, 1977
Sound familiar? Replace the word 'cooling' with 'warming', and it is exactly the same as everyone we have today. Schneider now warns us of Global Warming.
Another movement not long ago was one of genetic culling: dumb people should be neutered for the benefit of humanity. This was popular with many celebrities and famous political figures, until people stood back and were like, hang on a second, that's a really bad idea.
People get caught up in a media frenzy very easily.
@Mytical and Xerox:
Strange weather and warming is part of nature. Climate change and unprecedented, crazy weather has been occuring since the beginning of the earth. There has been greater cooling, greater warming and greater carbon dioxide levels than we have now, many times in the past, and we have only recently had industry.
It is also worth noting that planet Earth has only had ice for approx 20% of the time.
@Minion:
Quote:
The warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Which makes even small (small compared to water vapor) increase in carbon dioxide have a large impact on the warming.
Actually, if carbon dioxide is greatly increased (say, doubled) the warmer surface temperatures from the forcing from back radiation will increase the infra-red radiation to space to compensate for the reduction in the CO2 bands. This will stimulate convective overturning, resulting in an increased radiation to space in the water vapour bands. This will dampen the effects of the increased CO2 and the constraining of the surface temperature by the increased evaporation of latent energy at the surface.
However the mechanics of the greenhouse effect are vastly overstated; we do not really understand it very well.
In fact, studies show that the efficiency of CO2 on the radiative effect of the Earth is actually insensitive to changes in CO2 levels.
When the IPCC released its Summary for Policymakers, this passage was taken out by the non-scientist editor:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases [and] No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes ... When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? The best answer to this question is 'We do not know.'."
It was replaced with a statement detailing the "discernible human effect" of climate forcing.
Quote:
It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources of CO2. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions.
Actually, recent revised studies into historical CO2 concentrations such as GEOCARBIII and COPSE show that it has not remained steady at all, and has been up to 25 times higher than present.
Carbon has been extracted from the atmosphere into carbonate rocks such that the modern CO2 content is among the lowest in geological history. Many of the currently accepted carbon sinks are ignored by the IPCC.
REINFORCED NOTE:
I am not a climate scientist. I do not know who is right. I created this thread more for the fact that I do not buy into the media frenzy over global warming.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 19, 2009 06:44 PM |
|
|
Yeah, that is why I admitted up front I know nothing about Global Warming. It can very well be just random weather, heck for all I know it can be an alien race doing experiments (no, I do not think this, just saying that this demonstrates how much I know as to why this is occuring).
____________
Message received.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 20, 2009 04:22 AM |
|
|
As much as I hate to pick on Rarensu, his post is a nice example of what is wrong with the global warming debate: nonscientists taking random figures out of context, with no explanation of the source material, and then extrapolating potentially unrelated general conclusions from them.
Quote:
Humans didn't start pumping massive carbon into the atmosphere until 1930. Glaciers have been melting since 1830. When we started pumping massive carbon into the atmosphere in 1930, the glacial melting did not accelerate.
So what? Who says that the only cause of glacial melting may be putative CO2-related global warming?
Regarding the figure you showed, do you know how the data was acquired? What assumptions were made? Who took the measurements? What technique was used? What weaknesses the technique has? What sort of error analysis was done? Etc. etc. etc. There are thousands of additional details that would appear in a real peer-reviewed journal artical, but here you just rip one figure out that you can use to justify a point of view.
The point isn't that you're wrong. It's that this method of convincing others about your political position is intellectually dishonest and doesn't do justice to the complexity of atmospheric research. At least TA has the decency to admit he is not an atmospheric scientist. You and others like you try to pass yourself off as such by slapping up some random data acquired by another scientist (supposedly - you don't even cite your source, another version of serious and severe intellectual dishonesty that would get any legit scientist fired and completely discredited) and making your own uneducated interpretations from it.
I *have* done atmospheric research, and published in the field, and I can tell you that the atmosphere is one of the most complicated chemical systems you could imagine. Methane production, water production, carbon dioxide production - they're all complex cycles that are related by delicate equilibria. When you disrupt one chemical constituent, you shift the whole system around, which can lead to drastic effects. Most people don't understand how simple chemical equilibria work, let alone complicated ones. Boiling them down down to a few figures doesn't do it justice, and won't convince anyone with a lick of scientific training that you have any idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
Mars is also currently experiencing polar melting. I doubt that earth-bound greenhouse gasses are to blame for that.
Correlation doesn't imply a causal relationship. You're talking two planets with completely different atmospheres, geology, plate techtonics, distance from sun, and etc. You really think you can make a reliable causation conclusion from such a simplistic analysis?
Quote:
What are these so-called greenhouse gasses, anyway?
[image omitted]
CO2 is the number two greenhouse gas. Only 0.11% of it is man-made.
The number one greenhouse gas? Clouds.
Aside from the fact that it's not clear what the heck this has to do with anything, clouds aren't even gasses. It's a shame that policy decisions are being made on the basis of such shoddy science.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 20, 2009 06:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I have to agree with Corribus on this one. It is a matter of better safe then sorry.
It is nice to reduce pollution ceertainly. But if for example the US imposes a lot of regulations to curtail global warming and China, India, and other developing nations don't, US businesses will be at an even bigger disadvantage than they are now for what is probably going to be no or little benefit. I don't see the US going protectionist and imposing high tarrifs on inbound goods to offset increased costs of more regulations as being likely. And I don't see developing nations stopping or slowing development.
I think man plays little role if any role in global warming and cooling. The sunspot activity seems to be the primary factor.
Certainly some time in the future we may be able to get by on only solar/wind/geothermal and other "clean" energy but technology is not yet at that point. Continued use of oil and coal will be necessary for some time barring a sudden technological breakthrough.
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2009 09:04 AM |
|
Edited by ihor at 09:05, 20 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
It is nice to reduce pollution ceertainly. But if for example the US imposes a lot of regulations to curtail global warming and China, India, and other developing nations don't, US businesses will be at an even bigger disadvantage than they are now for what is probably going to be no or little benefit. I don't see the US going protectionist and imposing high tarrifs on inbound goods to offset increased costs of more regulations as being likely. And I don't see developing nations stopping or slowing development.
The situation is quite different. Have you heard about Kyoto Protocol? Participating countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol have committed to cut emissions of not only carbon dioxide, but of also other greenhouse gases: Methane, Nitrous oxide, Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, Sulphur hexafluoride. While almost every country in the world has signed the Kyoto Protocol, the signature alone is symbolic. Only 2 countries refused to ratify protocol: USA and Australia.
Maybe the Global Warming depends on the greenhouse gases, maybe not, who knows? But if we declare to stop polluting our planet, we should act, not talk.
Quote:
Certainly some time in the future we may be able to get by on only solar/wind/geothermal and other "clean" energy but technology is not yet at that point. Continued use of oil and coal will be necessary for some time barring a sudden technological breakthrough.
You are right. And the time forces us to develop new technologies. The prognosis is that reserves of oil and gas on our planet are only for 50 years, coal for 200 years.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 20, 2009 09:34 AM |
|
|
Corribus, you are right that the atmosphere is a very complex system.
Not only that, but the atmosphere is only a small part of the Earth's climate system, a fact often ignored in today's climate science.
The complexity of the climate system (dwarfing that of the atmosphere) depends on many variables and systems, both known and unknown.
Oh, and if the climate sceptics are wrong, they're not nearly as screwed as if an atheist is wrong 
Quote:
The prognosis is that reserves of oil and gas on our planet are only for 50 years, coal for 200 years.
People claimed that the Earth would run out of forested land many decades ago, until they realised that it didn't happen.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2009 09:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, and if the climate sceptics are wrong, they're not nearly as screwed as if an atheist is wrong
I have a feeling that this most superficial and doubtful statement is somehow symbolic for the whole thread.
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2009 09:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People claimed that the Earth would run out of forested land many decades ago, until they realised that it didn't happen.
The difference is that we can't create new reserves of such a resources in 30 years like afforest new teritory. By natural way oil, gas and coal is creating in thousands of years.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 20, 2009 10:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and if the climate sceptics are wrong, they're not nearly as screwed as if an atheist is wrong
I have a feeling that this most superficial and doubtful statement is somehow symbolic for the whole thread.
Well, one could draw an interesting parallel between the brimstones of hell and global warming catastrophe theories, but it seems to me your snide quip doesn't leave much open for discussion so I'll stick to sarcasm 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 21, 2009 12:12 AM |
|
|
@TA
Quote:
Not only that, but the atmosphere is only a small part of the Earth's climate system, a fact often ignored in today's climate science.
True and all the more reason that people - and especially politicians - shouldn't be making grand conclusions about a few figures ripped out of context from uncited scientific work.
Unfortunately, climate change is an issue that has been heavily politicized because a lot of money is involved, which should give ANYONE pause when someone other than a scientist starts talking, and even then you should wonder where their loyalties lie sometimes.
My point is that I get very annoyed when I see someone slap up a figure with some random data on it and conclude "See, global warming is a sham! It's so easy to see!" Not because I believe in the opposite conclusion - because it just shows a complete inability to appreciate the complexity of climatology.
As to issues like the Kyoto Protocol, well I can understand the arguments against the US commiting to imposing sanctions on itself that don't also bind other countries. However, I'd like to point out that such arguments are based solely out of financial concerns, which in turn are based on simple greed (when you boil it down). Even if you don't believe in global warming, I think we can all agree that at best, dumping a gazillion tons of pollution into the atmosphere is innocuous, and more probably it is bad in some way. At worst, it will lead to global catastrophe. When I was a child, my parents taught me that just because someone else does something wrong, or evil, or harmful, that doesn't give me the right to behave in the same way. Someone has to set the standard of what is right, and what is good. Humans have a moral obligation to treat this planet well, and beyond that, it is also possibly a matter of survival, but we can't reasonably expect everyone to behave that way, and if behave poorly with the excuse that our neighbor is also, so that's only fair, well, we'll only end up harming ourselves in the long run. The US should limit pollution REGARDLESS of what other countries do, an regardless of whether human CO2 production is a complete hoax or not, and furthermore we shouldn't need some binding international contract to do it.
The fact of the matter is that the US won't pass legislation to limit CO2 prouction because many companies lobby congress not to do so, in turn because that would hurt their bottom lines. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Truth of Science. The uncertainty over climatology is just a convenient weapon for the parties interested to use to argue for keeping the status quo. Unfortunately, in the long run, We The People are putting the economic welfare of indiviuals - whether a few or lot - above the health of all the people on Earth, including all Americans, and indeed the health Earh itself.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 21, 2009 12:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It is nice to reduce pollution ceertainly. But if for example the US imposes a lot of regulations to curtail global warming and China, India, and other developing nations don't, US businesses will be at an even bigger disadvantage than they are now for what is probably going to be no or little benefit. I don't see the US going protectionist and imposing high tarrifs on inbound goods to offset increased costs of more regulations as being likely. And I don't see developing nations stopping or slowing development.
I think man plays little role if any role in global warming and cooling. The sunspot activity seems to be the primary factor.
You know what I get out of your post?
First paragraph: "Reducing nukes and weapons is certainly good, but if only US does it, it will be at a disadvantage." (which is fine)
The second one tries to justify that without any basis: "I don't think nukes are that bad anyway." And why? just because it's what you like more, so the first justification isn't enough (clearly it doesn't attract that many people eh?) you have to come up with that?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
titaniumalloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 01:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
True and all the more reason that people - and especially politicians - shouldn't be making grand conclusions about a few figures ripped out of context from uncited scientific work.
What about making grand conclusions about figures ripped out of cited scientific work? I see more climate change doomsday predictions every day. Every second lecture, even completely unrelated ones talking about geology or engineering "but meanwhile we're all gonna die from global warming!". To question is to effectively wear an "I <3 Satan" t-shirt.
The fact that all the climate models agree on the warming doesn't mean much: everybody sets their parameters to come to this conclusion because if they were the outlier, they wouldn't get funding. The fact remains that we know very little about the workings of the atmosphere and in particular water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas, as well as clouds and the effect of solar activity on cloud condensation nuclei.
What about the new cap and trade and emissions reduction scheme in britain which is set to cost GBP 27,000 per family?
These schemes are too little, too late and too costly. For example, had the Kyoto Protocol been met 100%, it would only delay the consequences of climate change by about six years. Meanwhile, the cost to the US alone had they met the targets would be enough to give clean drinking water to the rest of the world.
The point is not that by not ratifying Kyoto the US is going to go buying water for everyone, but rather this: could cutting emissions at all costs leave us with a situation that we lack the funds to deal with the consequences when they inevitably arrive?
I read an interesting article yesterday. The findings of a recent study by a certain climatologist (I'd have to look it up again to find his name) are this:
Post industrial revolution, when industry was as dirty as its ever been, we released heavy particulate pollution into the atmosphere in great unprecendented levels which caused a global average temperature drop, sparking cries and fear about "Global Cooling". Then we cleaned up our act a bit (we still emit a hell of a lot of CO2 but this is not a pollutant) and temperatures began to rise. The claim of the article is that this steep rise of Global Warming in the Late 20th-Century Warming "might actually be due to good environmental stewardship" -Nathan Myhrvold.
The article then went on to describe a coalition of scientists (including Nathan Myhrvold a colleague of S.Hawking, and Ken Caldeira, shared Nobel Peace Price winner in 2007) who are researching technology to emit a small amount of sulphur gases into the stratosphere, which would cost very little and would negate all the warming of climate change and the anthropogenic forcings of the greenhouse effect in a cheap and effective manner, termed "geoengineering".
Interesting.
Quote:
Unfortunately, in the long run, We The People are putting the economic welfare of indiviuals - whether a few or lot - above the health of all the people on Earth, including all Americans, and indeed the health Earh itself.
Honestly, if even the worst predictions of global warming come true, the Earth will be fine. So will the human race; we've survived worse. It's only civilisation that's under threat
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 02:02 PM |
|
|
Lol, only the civilization ;D
Anyhow, if it is possible give links or sourses to your rather intriguing yet controversial claims. Can I see this study? Quote:
Actually, recent revised studies into historical CO2 concentrations such as GEOCARBIII and COPSE show that it has not remained steady at all, and has been up to 25 times higher than present.
Carbon has been extracted from the atmosphere into carbonate rocks such that the modern CO2 content is among the lowest in geological history. Many of the currently accepted carbon sinks are ignored by the IPCC.
Also this is an interesting one Quote:
Actually, if carbon dioxide is greatly increased (say, doubled) the warmer surface temperatures from the forcing from back radiation will increase the infra-red radiation to space to compensate for the reduction in the CO2 bands. This will stimulate convective overturning, resulting in an increased radiation to space in the water vapour bands. This will dampen the effects of the increased CO2 and the constraining of the surface temperature by the increased evaporation of latent energy at the surface.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
titaniumalloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 11:28 PM |
|
|
@Minion:For the first one, GEOCARBIII and COPSE are the studies.
For the second:
This is to do with the water vapour feedback system.
"When surface temperature rises, there is an amplification due to water vapour feedback. This will increase the infra-red radiation to space to compensate for the reduction in the CO2 bands. The warmer surface temperatures will stimulate convective overturning, resulting in an increased radiation to space in the water vapour bands. This will dampen the effects of the increased CO2 and the constraining of the surface temperature by the increased evaporation of latent energy at the surface. This is why in past times when the atmospheric CO2 conc. has been more than 25 times higher than the present value, there has been no runaway greenhouse."
-Plimer, I. 2009
Held, I.M. and Sodon, B.J. 2006: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. Energy and Environment 18: 951-983
Chilingar, G.V., Khilyuk, L.F. and Sorokhtin, O.G. 2008: Cooling of the atmosphere due to CO2 emission. Energy Sources 30: 1-9
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted October 29, 2009 11:20 AM |
|
|
well, I don't know much about global warming, but I know that if the temperature would rise, it would NOT affect the water level, and to prove it, I have done a little experiment.
If one have a bowl, and fill it up with rocks, and then with water so a little bit of the rocks is above the water surface, thn one has countries and water in a miniature scale, now if one where to add ice and put into the water, and the amount of ice would be in the same scale as the bowl of water and rocks (requires a little calculations but shouldn't be too hard), and then we wait for the ice to melt, when the ice has completely melted away, have the water level been affected? NO.
Why? Because for the water level to be affected be the ice when it melts, the ice has to fill the whole water AND a part above it, this very same experiment can be made with a glass and a little ice, put one small peice of ice in the glass and let it melt, nothing happens with the water level, fill the glass with ice and let melt, the water level is affected.
Conclusion: Melting ice will not affect the water level in the world.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 29, 2009 03:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because for the water level to be affected be the ice when it melts, the ice has to fill the whole water AND a part above it, this very same experiment can be made with a glass and a little ice, put one small peice of ice in the glass and let it melt, nothing happens with the water level, fill the glass with ice and let melt, the water level is affected.
Conclusion: Melting ice will not affect the water level in the world.
Somebody needs to do some reading on how much ice there is over sea level at the north and south pole.
____________
|
|
Carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted October 29, 2009 05:23 PM |
|
|
it can't be as much as to fill up all the water on earth that's for sure.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
| |
|
|
