« prev   random   next »

11
2

Global Cooling 1/2 degree in last 2 years.

By Onvacation following x   2018 May 18, 1:27pm 13,963 views   350 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/860837?section=newsfront&keywords=earth-cool-half-degree-nasa&year=2018&month=05&date=16&id=860837&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main

The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.

Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18

« First    « Previous    Comments 281 - 320 of 350    Next »    Last »

281   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Sep 14, 8:33am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It’s colder, it’s hotter, it’s colder, it’s hotter.

Sounds like normal weather to me.
282   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 8:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
How about the half that does believe start talking about solutions?


You're not aware of the proposals? There have been lots of potential solutions bandied about...
283   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 8:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
It’s colder, it’s hotter, it’s colder, it’s hotter.

Sounds like normal weather to me.


Exhibit A.
284   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Sep 14, 8:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

You're not aware of the proposals? There have been lots of potential solutions bandied about...

Such as?
285   CBOEtrader   ignore (3)   2018 Sep 14, 8:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
CBOEtrader says
Then explain how they did it in the 1880's.


Red herring and a troll. Great job.


So without any way to do these measurements in an accurate way in the past its ok w you? How can you support concepts like "hottest in history" if our measurements werent accurate 25 years ago?

Unless you can rectify this problem you have no authority to lecture others on understanding data.
286   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 8:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Such as?


Google proposals to combat climate change and you'll find lots.

Here's an article for 2007:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18forum.html
287   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Sep 14, 9:05am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Here's an article for 2007:

That is an article of Hillary electioneering talking points. 55 mpg by 2030? That is too far in the future to be serious, especially when spoke in 2007, as is "reducing oil imports by 2/3 by 2030" (even though Trump may have already exceeded that goal). Even so, replacing imported oil with domestic oil does not lower carbon emissions. "Cap and Trade" is a gift to Hillary buddy Goldman-Sacs who would make a killing trading carbon credits. The rest of the article, such as "ending nuclear weapons" is pap.

What is wrong with these two present day ideas?

1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.
288   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 9:24am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Thanks to the miracle of fracking natural gas (which all Democrats were against), America now leads the world in carbon reduction and oil and gas exports.

"Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#5e03202b3535

Meanwhile, China, India and Germany are relying more and more on coal and dirty Russian and OPEC oil.

America has already achieved more carbon reduction RESULTS than all the hypocrites that signed the Paris Agreements. And our economy is BOOMING and we no longer are hostage to OPEC and Russia. Win win win.....
289   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 9:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
What is wrong with these two present day ideas?

1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.


Who says something is wrong with them? Add them to the discussion.

Although I don't see how limiting immigration would limit world population.
290   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 10:05am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Although I don't see how limiting immigration would limit world population.


Illegals are incentivized to have children once they make it across the US border. Once their kids are legal citizens, it makes it easier for the parents to stay in the US with our idiotic chain migration rules.

Whereas, if these same poor people were still stuck in shitholes like Venezuela or Honduras, they would probably have less children because they can't afford it.

"Venezuela crisis: sterilizations soar as couples count the cost of children"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/03/venezuela-sterilizations-soar-children-crisis-food-shortages-inflation
291   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Sep 14, 10:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Although I don't see how limiting immigration would limit world population.

I am talking about limiting immigration to 1st world countries. A person living in the US uses 100x the resources as someone in the third world. Think of all the water used for dishwashers, clothes washers, showers,and irrigation. I would say an American flushes more water per day than a third world persons total daily use. A third world guy uses very little electricity, by we use lots of juice for luxuries like air conditioning and clothes dryers alone. And cooking with oven and stove takes lots more energy than using a wood fire. Add to that the individuals share of the energy it takes to truck goods to stores, keep supermarket coolers running, and keep on the business and city lights.

I lived in the Azores for about a year and a half. Azores was not really 3rd world, but more like US in the 1950s. No homes had A/C, and everyone used a clothesline instead of a dryer. Farm products, including milk, were often brought to the stores on donkeys or animal pulled carts The meat sections of the food store did not use refrigeration, and I do not remember anyone getting sick from eating it. Everything shut down at night. If a person emigrated from Azores to the US, his lifestyle would become a lot more resource intensive. The "carbon use" would be even more stark for a true third worlder moving to the US. Thus, 1st world countries limiting immigration from 3rd world counties would keep prevent an increase in resource depletion and carbon use.

By the way, I did not feel "deprived" by "lower living standards." The lack of materialism and greater sociability was quite refreshing. I also got used to eating octopus, barnacles, quail eggs, and overcooked meat with a fried egg on top.
292   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 11:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

Illegals are incentivized to have children once they make it across the US border. Once their kids are legal citizens, it makes it easier for the parents to stay in the US with our idiotic chain migration rules.

Whereas, if these same poor people were still stuck in shitholes like Venezuela or Honduras, they would probably have less children because they can't afford it.


Birth rates are actually much higher in 3rd world countries so the opposite of what you say is true.

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25
293   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 11:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
I am talking about limiting immigration to 1st world countries. A person living in the US uses 100x the resources as someone in the third world.


True. But, that will change over time. Many formerly 3rd world countries are well on their way to becoming 1st world.
294   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 11:16am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Birth rates are actually much higher in 3rd world countries so the opposite of what you say is true.

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25


Not in Central and South America. They are plummeting.

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2015/1221/In-Latin-America-an-exception-to-falling-birthrates-draws-new-scrutiny
https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ho&v=25
295   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 14, 11:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

Not in Central and South America. They are plummeting.


Exactly. From your article:

"The trend is generally viewed as a good thing – evidence of a wealthier and healthier society, where parents aren’t operating under the assumption that a child may die from malnutrition or disease. It reflects a higher number of girls staying in school and then working. And it signals changed attitudes toward women's central roles."
296   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 1, 7:28am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

NOAA's numbers are out. August is the 5th warmest August in recorded history. Nasa concurs and says the solar minimum is providing some much needed cooling.
Expect snow this winter.
297   mell   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 1, 8:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
NOAA's numbers are out. August is the 5th warmest August in recorded history. Nasa concurs and says the solar minimum is providing some much needed cooling.
Expect snow this winter.


I posted the numbers for 2018 a couple of months ago and it as clear that without a record heat summer this would be barely in the top 5 maybe even top 10, so a drastic drop compared to the recent record after record years. If this continues this may be a significant reversal to come.
298   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 10:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
If this continues this may be a significant reversal to come.

Based on what?
299   Expat   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 10:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

personal
300   Tenpoundbass   ignore (11)   2018 Oct 1, 10:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

1/2 a degree is a big fucking deal right?
301   Expat   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 10:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

anti_forum
302   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 10:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Expat says
The level of willful stupidity and ignorance here is shocking.

LOL you must be new here. I'm shocked that you're shocked.
303   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 10:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
How does one measure "global surface mean air temperature"? Then explain how they did it in the 1880's.


I think they used these things called thermometers. Heard of em?

https://qz.com/1055629/why-does-all-our-climate-data-start-in-1880/

Fact is, there were weather stations all over the world by the mid 1800's, taking fairly accurate and frequent measurements. Suprisingly (or maybe not), there's a shit ton of data about climate and temperature, but earlier than 1880 and the accuracy and coverage start to deviate to the point that the data isn't usable.. for now. Much of the data is in books, not digitized, and as it gets entered into a computer this may change.

But hey, don't let a little thing like data ruin your argument. Keep going!
304   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 1, 11:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass says
1/2 a degree is a big fucking deal right?


Only if it goes up, then it's big, almost irreversable, we'll have to create a carbon trading market for Wall Street to trade Collars and Strangles on right away.

If it goes down 1/2 a degree, it's just a blip.
305   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 11:47am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

We can say for sure that in last years Earth has become warmer, that is a scientific FACT which we can not argue about. A year-long cooling or warming is a blip, and the trend clearly is towards warming.

Having said that, explanation as to why it gets warmer is a theory, which may or may not be correct, or phrasing differently, we can not accept or deny it 100%. For some it may be 10% possibility that humans cause warming, for others 90% possibility.

They way how I think about this - and I give it about 60 human/40 non-human warming cause - is as follows. Even if it is a relatively small possibility, we all are royally screwed if we do cause the warming. So, why not do something about it.

Next question is what we can and should do. What we do should not decrease life standard of average person and should not enrich banks and other parasites. Things that are for virtue signalling of Hollywood celebrities (electric, hybrid cars; fuel ethanol, etc) are useless and may in fact be causing warming as driving a Toyota Corolla might be more efficient than a hybrid WRT to CO2 emissions. Blaming everyone for global warming and living in a 1000000 sq ft mansion that consumes as much electricity as a whole village (hello, Al Gore) is counterproductive as well.

I'd say that we should switch to nuclear power generation which is carbon-neutral. Recycle nuclear waste (technology exists, but it is not done because govt is scared of proliferation). Develop technologies for nuclear combustion of other elements, such as Th which is nearly limitless. Research to make better batteries, then perhaps electric vehicles will be able to replace or supplement internal combustion. Also, start shaming idiots in media/Hollywood who virtue signal about environment while consuming as much as 100 normal humans. Perhaps then idea of limitless consumption will become less popular. Use solar where it makes sense (in desert environment).

This

HeadSet says
1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.


also may help, and #2 probably is more important. Ain't gonna happen though, as too many people make money in reselling crap from China.

socal2 says
Thanks to the miracle of fracking natural gas (which all Democrats were against), America now leads the world in carbon reduction and oil and gas exports.


Absolutely true. The more conservative audience should remember that fracking came out of DOE-funded research in 1970's. DOE is now vilified, but they laid groundwork for shale revolution.
306   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 11:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

One amusing video about fracking to lighten the mood here:


We can yell at each other forever but that will not solve anything.
307   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 12:14pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

dr6B says
I give it about 60 human/40 non-human warming cause

Interesting, how did you arrive at that number? Would love to see your research on it.

dr6B says
Things that are for virtue signalling of Hollywood celebrities (electric, hybrid cars; fuel ethanol, etc) are useless and may in fact be causing warming as driving a Toyota Corolla might be more efficient than a hybrid WRT to CO2 emissions. Also, blaming everyone for global warming and living in a 1000000 sq ft mansion that consumes as much electricity as a whole village (hello, Al Gore) is counterproductive as well.


The fixation climate change deniers have on Hollywood 'hypocrisy' when it comes to this topic mystifies me. Celebrities are using their influence to raise awareness, big deal. Are they perfect non-polluters? Certainly not. Fact is, everyone IS to blame for global warming, including Al Gore.

I would agree that nuclear is a great way to go. Everything you wrote above regarding that is solid. More $$ towards fusion research; if that nut is cracked then it's game over for oil, fracking, coal, basically everything. Solar works too.. And not just in desert climates! https://news.energysage.com/solar-panels-in-winter-weather-snow-affect-power-production/

Anti solar people grouse about how pollutive the manufacture of panels is, I guess they've never seen coal strip-mining. Also, the environmental damage a solar panel might inflict is drastically outweighed by it's longevity and usability.


Also, a RAV4 hybrid (I assume that's what you meant by hybrid wrt?)gets 155 g/km CO2 emissions, and is a much heavier and larger car than a Corolla.. which gets 188 g/km (1.6l engine). Just saying. 😂
308   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 12:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Develop technologies for nuclear combustion of other elements, such as Th

I am sure you meant "fission" instead of "combustion," but the point is still valid. Another breakthrough tech would be a room temperature near superconductor, which would abate the line-loss that exists transmitting electricity today. Without that loss, the same generating capacity could service a multiple of what is presently possible. Better solar cells, better batteries, more efficient motors are on the way anyhow.

If Californians do not want to wait and instead something today, how about going back to clotheslines? Clothes Dryers are serious energy hogs and large populations cutting back on dryer use would cull some serious "carbon."
309   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 12:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
If Californians do not want to wait and instead something today, how about going back to clotheslines? Clothes Dryers are serious energy hogs and large populations cutting back on dryer use would cull some serious "carbon."


Sure, but why just Californians? How about people in the Midwest stop building colossal mcmansions that take massive amounts of energy to heat and cool, many of which are so poorly constructed that they leak energy like a sieve?
310   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 12:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
Also, a RAV4 hybrid (I assume that's what you meant by hybrid wrt?)gets 155 g/km CO2 emissions, and is a much heavier and larger car than a Corolla.. which gets 188 g/km (1.6l engine). Just saying.

Need to take into account battery production, which for hybrids involve separation of rare earth elements, which is extremely energy-consuming. Environmental footprint for Corolla production is much smaller than for hybrids, even if it consumes more fuel when running. There was a research paper ca. 10 yrs ago which looked at this issue, but I can not track it down any more. I recall that one needs to run hybrid for many years without changing the battery in order for it to be more efficient than Corolla.

Evan F. says
The fixation climate change deniers have on Hollywood 'hypocrisy' when it comes to this topic mystifies me. Celebrities are using their influence to raise awareness, big deal. Are they perfect non-polluters? Certainly not. Fact is, everyone IS to blame for global warming, including Al Gore.


They are annoying as hell (celebrities). If they do not practice what they preach, they should shut the fuck up.

Evan F. says
Interesting, how did you arrive at that number? Would love to see your research on it.


An unscientific gut feeling after reading research about global warming in Nature and Science magazines for last 15 years, and avoiding reading anything in non-scientific press/not listening to TV about this topic.

HeadSet says
If Californians do not want to wait and instead something today, how about going back to clotheslines?

I am not in CA (in TX), but we do use clotheslines when we have dry weather. In more regulated CA though HOA's might skin you alive for that.
311   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 12:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Also, a RAV4 hybrid (I assume that's what you meant by hybrid wrt?)gets 155 g/km CO2 emissions, and is a much heavier and larger car than a Corolla.. which gets 188 g/km (1.6l engine). Just saying. 😂

There is also the "carbon" emitted generating the electricity the plug in types use, vs the "carbon" generated refining and getting gasoline to service stations. The future can be electric cars using renewable generated electricity, but for that to work we need to keep population at a resource sustainable level.
312   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 12:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Another breakthrough tech would be a room temperature near superconductor, which would abate the line-loss that exists transmitting electricity today.

I think they are now above liquid N2 boiling point, where some technological applications are feasible. However, they can not easily make the material into wires, and the theory behind high T superconductivity is not clear at this point.
313   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 12:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
Solar works too.. And not just in desert climates! https://news.energysage.com/solar-panels-in-winter-weather-snow-affect-power-production/

Energy sage is a solar company, so they will not be objective. I considered putting solar on my house, but with hurricanes every Fall, strong winds in Fall and Spring which would drop tree branches on solar panels, it becomes pain in the ass.
314   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 12:39pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Fact is, everyone IS to blame for global warming, including Al Gore.

And we must all atone for our guilt by "believing" the AGW Gospel and voting Democrat? The fact that Al Gore bangs the AGW drum while living in a style that spews more "carbon" than an average town, makes me thing Al is just a modern version of the old TV Evangelist. The TV Evangelist did not need to live in a humble giving lifestyle, he just had to spout hard core dogma to keep the flock. I doubt that either the TV Evangelist or Al Gore actually believe what they preach, but it pays handsomely.
315   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 12:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I considered putting solar on my house, but with hurricanes every Fall, strong winds in Fall and Spring which would drop tree branches on solar panels, it becomes pain in the ass.

I live on the VA coast, which is also prone to hurricanes, and I have been to quite a few homes with solar panels (we have sponsored "solar tours" every year.) The solar panels are quite durable. The issue is more in cost. It takes about $20k to install enough panels to "net zero," and $20k will pay years of electric bills. But as the tech improves it will become better economics to go solar. Right now it is more "hobby" than cost savings.
316   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 12:53pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
What is wrong with these two present day ideas?

1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.


Those are both good ideas. Another good idea would be to increase research into ways to manage the climate.

Note that neither major party proposes any of these ideas. Both major parties prefer the divide and misrule method: stoke panic among climate alarmists, and denial among the 'god is in charge of the climate' crowd, and sit back to watch the show with some popcorn (and maybe lots of beer). The alarmists, in their panic, say horrible things that destroy their own credibility, and demand corrupt and counter-productive policies, e.g. subsidizing southern hemisphere kleptocracies and the Clinton Foundation. The deniers are at least not proposing harm. Therein lies the "debate," and that explains why Democrats end up losing on this issue.
317   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 12:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

dr6B says
Need to take into account battery production, which for hybrids involve separation of rare earths, which is extremely energy-consuming. Environmental footprint for Corolla production is much smaller than for hybrids, even if it consumes more fuel when running. There was a research paper ca. 10 yrs ago which looked at this issue, but I can not track it down any more


10 years ago. Can't track it down. Certainly manufacturing has improved in that stretch of time. The fact is, yes, hybrids take more energy to produce, but that is more than offset by their efficiency over the life of the car, even when using non-green sources of electricity.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits.htm
318   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 12:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I think they are now above liquid N2 boiling point, where some technological applications are feasible.

I saw some cryo type superconductors like that in grad school in 1989. One guy even used the superconductor as winding in an sort of electric motor. All done around liquid nitrogen temps. No progress since then? You smart people need to get off your lazy asses.
319   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 1:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
The issue is more in cost. It takes about $20k to install enough panels to "net zero," and $20k will pay years of electric bills.

True.. how many years is the big question, I suppose. And your average electric bill is going to go nowhere but up. Most back-of-the-napkin calculations I've seen recently pin solar panels as cost effective after about 7-8 years.
320   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 1:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
10 years ago. Can't track it down. Certainly manufacturing has improved in that stretch of time. The fact is, yes, hybrids take more energy to produce, but that is more than offset by their efficiency over the life of the car, even when using non-green sources of electricity.


Thanks, interesting link. I recall that the paper I can not track down was from Berkeley, but I might be wrong.

This from the link

According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid

is also very illuminating.

« First    « Previous    Comments 281 - 320 of 350    Next »    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions