// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

‘Global Temperature’ — Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Maybe - but that doesn't tell me that the mean is a valid measure for this.
    Suppose you took an average of the height of a large random sample of people. The number tells you something about human beings, it says nothing about how tall you are. It is just a matter of the question you want answered. If we do know your height, we can place you on the normal distribution curve that we got from the same data that gave us the mean.

    If you want to measure rainfall, say, you don’t try to measure individual raindrops and count them. Instead, you let them accumulate in a bucket. The depth of water in the bucket is to rainfall as mean surface temperature is to actual surface temperatures across the globe.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      Suppose you took an average of the height of a large random sample of people. The number tells you something about human beings, it says nothing about how tall you are. It is just a matter of the question you want answered. If we do know your height, we can place you on the normal distribution curve that we got from the same data that gave us the mean.

      If you want to measure rainfall, say, you don’t try to measure individual raindrops and count them. Instead, you let them accumulate in a bucket. The depth of water in the bucket is to rainfall as mean surface temperature is to actual surface temperatures across the globe.
      FF2, I understand how the mean is used. Now, let's look at your example.

      Robert Wadlow and Charles Stratton are both included in your sample. Now, what does the mean tell us about height? Or we simply use your wording - infants and giants are included in the sample. Numeric superiority won't save it - you got three hundred babies in a sample of 1000 - or any number at that proportion (random sampling doesn't guarantee no skew - just makes it less likely) - and the mean is now meaningless.

      Oh, but we can weight it. Sure - you (general) can put your thumb on the scale - but won't you select for what you think is 'normal'? Yeppers - weighting is vulnerable to bias (see 2016 election polling). So is it really telling us something about human height - or something about your expectations of human height?

      Well, we use a distribution curve ... that we got by averaging heights... Oopsies...

      No? Great, Japan has a sampled distribution curve... Uh...

      Better plan - skip the mean and use the median - THAT tells us something useful about the distribution where the mean does not. [Yeah, it's still gonna be skewed but I can fix that without weighting - categories for the win!]


      Look, if you (general) don't know why you are using a exceedingly basic metric like the mean before you EVER plug it in, you did the whole thing wrong. I might (stress might because this is BAD form) accept that some metrics are going to have to be plugged in before you know if they work as expected - but it's a hellishly hard case to make - and even harder to prove that it's not mere conformation bias at work.

      A metric, like the mean, is already well defined. Any statistician worth his salt knows why he is choosing it in the analysis of his data LONG before he has begun compiling that data. At the very least, he knows the reason why he's chosen it before using it. This 'using it to confirm it' stuff is exceedingly poor methodology.


      We've been at this for pages. I do appreciate that you took this on and did so fair and square (unlike some externally seeded fruits I know. ) but I don't see a point in continuing. I don't know how to make the question any clearer and you don't seem to know how to answer it (that's not a dig - you did try and you weren't screwing around doing so - not everyone knows everything and heck, it may just be that I can't get the idea across well enough - or we're both losing track and talking past each other ).

      Anyway, I appreciate the conversation! Catch you later!
      Last edited by Teallaura; 09-03-2019, 07:53 PM.

      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Comment


      • Good information here:
        https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
          Name a complex system where someone other than you thinks using a mean isn't valid.
          For one example, economists don't think it's valid to average prices to get an average price level.

          This isn't just what I think. This is standard, textbook economics. A quick google search yields lots of results explaining the many problems. E.g.
          http://textbook.stpauls.br/Macroeconomics/page_92.htm
          https://www.investopedia.com/article...priceindex.asp
          https://www.economicshelp.org/macroe...ems-measuring/
          https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classe...0Notes%206.pdf

          For a taste of the problems:

          It is not mathematically valid to compute the mean of the price of apples and the price of oranges because the units are wrong. You'd have to introduce arbitrary coefficients (scale factors) to convert them to a common unit.

          To make a price "index", someone chooses a "basket" of goods (let's say 2 apples and 3 oranges), and watches how the price of that basket changes over time. But the choice of basket of goods is arbitrary (it's a form of choosing arbitrary coefficients in the form apples-per-basket), and usually not all goods are included. People have tried to make it more objective by trying to study what basket of goods an "average consumer" purchases. This pushes the problem back into new problems of how do you validly average the baskets of goods of various individuals. And even if that were possible at a particular point in time, the "average basket" will likely not be the same at any other point in time, so it doesn't measure the change in average price. Again, even if it were possible to calculate the average basket, it would be meaningful only to the "average consumer", who may not even exist. The resulting index would be less meaningful to each individual as that individual varies from the average basket. It is more meaningful (and simpler) for an individual to just monitor his own individual buying and selling over time.

          Another problem commonly pointed out by economist is that it is difficult to impossible to include the effects of the changing quality of goods. For example, the price of electronics has surely fallen over the years, but how do you compare PCs today to PCs 10 to 40 years ago? If you include a contemporary PC in each year's basket, then your measure will fail to measure the fall in price of electronics. But if you consider them as different goods (because different quality), then you'd be comparing different baskets of goods over time, so your units of comparison would be wrong.

          And the very concept of a general or average "price level" requires the concept of the "classical dichotomy" of real and nominal price, which is rejected by various schools of economics, including Keynesians!
          (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_level
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_dichotomy)
          And if you reject the concept of the "price level", then you certainly don't think indices tell us about it.


          All this arbitrariness gives rise to many, conflicting, indices and "deflators" that purport to say something about price levels and inflation. They don't settle questions, but are themselves a matter of debate. Economists know to consider price indices only with a hefty grain of salt, and know that we cannot obtain the true average price--which is not agreed to even be a valid concept.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
            Although there is nothing overtly wrong about asking the question "Why is global mean temperature a meaningful statistic", in fact it is a sign of an inquisitive and probing mind to ask such a question - , it was not asked in the OP-article with anything like an honest desire to understand it. So I wanted to add a little bit more to aid those that might actually want to know how we can know global mean temperature is not just some arbitrary number cooked up by bad math or poor data.

            As has been discussed, the average temperature represents an average thermal energy level in the atmosphere itself, which in turn tells us about changes in the atmosphere's thermal retention properties. But there are other indicators of changing average temperature. One of those is the ocean. The seas are a much less dynamic heat sink than the atmosphere, and it takes a lot longer to effect change in it. In effect then, since the ocean, especially at depth, responds much more slowly, it requires a real, long term change in the average atmospheric temperature for it to react at depth. That is, momentary random fluctuations in atmospheric temperature have little long term effect on average global sea temperature. And especially rising averages that are artificially created by poor thermometer placement or improperly compensated for urban head island or 'artificial' compensations for things like TOB or 'homegenaity' calculations can not possibly produce REAL long term changes in ocean temperatures.

            That is, the actual average air temperature MUST be getting warmer over the entire planet on average for heat transfer into the oceans from the surface air interface (and then later at depth) to occur.


            So what do we see?

            Two articles, one on what has been Hawaii's Warmest summer on record - due primarily to a warming Pacific Ocean

            https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Ha...Second-Warmest

            and an article on how ocean warming is reaching the abyss:

            https://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...-reaches-abyss

            We see warming ocean temperatures across the globe AND we are seeing warming at depth as ocean currents take those warmer waters at depth.

            from the Hawaii article:

            average_sea_temperatures.jpg

            As you can see, we are seeing the warmest ocean temperatures since 1854 almost all grouped together in the last 2 decades.

            The second article discusses how ocean currents are taking this warm water down into the depths. Understanding that these changes REQUIRE Long term changes to atmospheric temperature because the ocean, again, takes a lot more time to absorb (and unfortunately to dissipate) heat than the atmosphere - especially at depth.

            So YES - the mean global atmospheric temperature IS a meaningful statistic. It is in fact telling us what is happening to the heat retention properties of the atmosphere, and in spite of all the 'tobacco science' reasoning that has been and continues to be applied to the real science in disreputable means to discredit it - we can see by other objective, independent measures that the atmosphere is warming over time - which is exactly what the global mean temperature is telling us.


            Jim
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-11-2019, 09:28 AM.
            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              As has been discussed, the average temperature represents an average thermal energy level in the atmosphere itself
              Is that true? I think the heat capacity of gasses varies with things like pressure, temperature and humidity.
              (e.g. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/a...ity-d_705.html
              https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/a...es-d_1535.html)

              And I pointed out earlier in this thread that when you have system containing non-uniform heat capacity, then you can have situations where average temperature and amount of thermal energy can even move in opposite directions.

              So, because the atmosphere is not homogeneous, I think we need additional steps to know what is the actual relation between average temperature and the thermal content of the atmosphere.

              In effect then, since the ocean, especially at depth, responds much more slowly, it requires a real, long term change in the average atmospheric temperature for it to react at depth...That is, the actual average air temperature MUST be getting warmer over the entire planet on average for heat transfer into the oceans from the surface air interface (and then later at depth) to occur.
              I thought (as in the article I posted earlier in this thread) that the explanation for the hiatus in atmospheric warming was that the ocean depths were warming instead of the atmosphere (and ocean surface) warming, not because of the atmospheric warming.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                from the Hawaii article:

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]39679[/ATTACH]

                As you can see, we are seeing the warmest ocean temperatures since 1854 almost all grouped together in the last 2 decades.
                I know this is the pettiest of complaints, but I still need to say it...

                Why in the world is that graph in reverse timeline? The standard is that the left-most bar is the earliest and the right-most bar is the most recent, i.e. it moves from oldest to newest, left to right. It goes against every convention to do it the opposite and put the most recent on the left side, and just makes it look weird.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  I know this is the pettiest of complaints, but I still need to say it...

                  Why in the world is that graph in reverse timeline? The standard is that the left-most bar is the earliest and the right-most bar is the most recent, i.e. it moves from oldest to newest, left to right. It goes against every convention to do it the opposite and put the most recent on the left side, and just makes it look weird.
                  I would like to know why it is measuring surface temperature which would be mostly affected by things like sunshine, and air temp. If we are looking at how much of a heat sink the oceans are, I would think we should be measuring the temperature below the surface and averaging that. But maybe I am missing something?

                  Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I would like to know why it is measuring surface temperature which would be mostly affected by things like sunshine, and air temp. If we are looking at how much of a heat sink the oceans are, I would think we should be measuring the temperature below the surface and averaging that. But maybe I am missing something?
                    Here is a pretty good set of articles with information about sea surface measurement. But surface doesn't necessarily mean the first inch, or even feet, it refers to a depth of up to 10 meters (33 ft). At 10 meters there is little to no variation due to the day/night cycle, with the most variation occurring around the first millimeter - about 2.5 degrees. Solar infrared doesn't penetrate very deep into the ocean, so the actual amount of direct warming from the sun is not all that much, even at the surface.

                    https://skepticalscience.com/ocean_t...ure_part1.html

                    https://skepticalscience.com/ocean_temperature_part2.html


                    And there are programs such as ARGO which are looking at temperatures down to a depth of 2000m, but there is nothing like a record from 1854 to work with.

                    Jim
                    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                    Comment


                    • Post reports podcast, the south Atlantic blob, 11 September. Time to wake up Christians; your God is giving you a good kicking, and He does not like the way you are ignoring Him.
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        Post reports podcast, the south Atlantic blob, 11 September. Time to wake up Christians; your God is giving you a good kicking, and He does not like the way you are ignoring Him.
                        Not sure why you would characterize it like that. Humanity is the cause, not God. But it is an interesting phenomenon. Thanks for pointing it out.

                        Jim
                        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Not sure why you would characterize it like that. Humanity is the cause, not God. But it is an interesting phenomenon. Thanks for pointing it out.

                          Jim
                          Are some Christians confused? Is climate change a sign of the end of days, or something else?
                          I found this evangelical call to action:

                          Statement of the Evangelical Climate Initiative
                          Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action
                          Preamble

                          As American evangelical Christian leaders, we recognize both our opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world.1 Whether we will enter the public square and offer our witness there is no longer an open question. We are in that square, and we will not withdraw.

                          We are proud of the evangelical community’s long-standing commitment to the sanctity of human life. But we also offer moral witness in many venues and on many issues. Sometimes the issues that we have taken on, such as sex trafficking, genocide in the Sudan, and the AIDS epidemic in Africa, have surprised outside observers. While individuals and organizations can be called to concentrate on certain issues, we are not a single-issue movement. We seek to be true to our calling as Christian leaders, and above all faithful to Jesus Christ our Lord. Our attention, therefore, goes to whatever issues our faith requires us to address.

                          Over the last several years many of us have engaged in study, reflection, and prayer related to the issue of climate change (often called “global warming”). For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority. Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough to offer the following moral argument related to the matter of human-induced climate change. We commend the four simple but urgent claims offered in this document to all who will listen, beginning with our brothers and sisters in the Christian community, and urge all to take the appropriate actions that follow from them.

                          CLAIM 1: Human-Induced Climate Change is Real

                          Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Evidence gathered since 1995 has only strengthened this conclusion.

                          Because all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data. As evangelicals we have hesitated to speak on this issue until we could be more certain of the science of climate change, but the signatories now believe that the evidence demands action:

                          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s most authoritative body of scientists and policy experts on the issue of global warming, has been studying this issue since the late 1980s. (From 1988—2002 the IPCC’s assessment of the climate science was Chaired by Sir John Houghton, a devout evangelical Christian.) It has documented the steady rise in global temperatures over the last fifty years, projects that the average global temperature will continue to rise in the coming decades, and attributes “most of the warming” to human activities.
                          The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, as well as all other G8 country scientific Academies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia), has concurred with these judgments.
                          In a 2004 report, and at the 2005 G8 summit, the Bush Administration has also acknowledged the reality of climate change and the likelihood that human activity is the cause of at least some of it.2
                          In the face of the breadth and depth of this scientific and governmental concern, only a small percentage of which is noted here, we are convinced that evangelicals must engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity’s responsibility to address it.

                          CLAIM 2: The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest

                          The earth’s natural systems are resilient but not infinitely so, and human civilizations are remarkably dependent on ecological stability and well-being. It is easy to forget this until that stability and well-being are threatened.

                          Even small rises in global temperatures will have such likely impacts as: sea level rise; more frequent heat waves, droughts, and extreme weather events such as torrential rains and floods; increased tropical diseases in now-temperate regions; and hurricanes that are more intense. It could lead to significant reduction in agricultural output, especially in poor countries. Low-lying regions, indeed entire islands, could find themselves under water. (This is not to mention the various negative impacts climate change could have on God’s other creatures.)

                          Each of these impacts increases the likelihood of refugees from flooding or famine, violent conflicts, and international instability, which could lead to more security threats to our nation.

                          Poor nations and poor individuals have fewer resources available to cope with major challenges and threats. The consequences of global warming will therefore hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected first are in the poorest regions of the world. Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.

                          CLAIM 3: Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem

                          While we cannot here review the full range of relevant biblical convictions related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points:

                          Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God’s world, and any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).
                          Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).
                          Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28).
                          Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.

                          CLAIM 4: The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change—;starting now.

                          The basic task for all of the world’s inhabitants is to find ways now to begin to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that are the primary cause of human-induced climate change.

                          There are several reasons for urgency. First, deadly impacts are being experienced now. Second, the oceans only warm slowly, creating a lag in experiencing the consequences. Much of the climate change to which we are already committed will not be realized for several decades. The consequences of the pollution we create now will be visited upon our children and grandchildren. Third, as individuals and as a society we are making long-term decisions today that will determine how much carbon dioxide we will emit in the future, such as whether to purchase energy efficient vehicles and appliances that will last for 10-20 years, or whether to build more coal-burning power plants that last for 50 years rather than investing more in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

                          In the United States, the most important immediate step that can be taken at the federal level is to pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program. On June 22, 2005 the Senate passed the Domenici-Bingaman resolution affirming this approach, and a number of major energy companies now acknowledge that this method is best both for the environment and for business.

                          We commend the Senators who have taken this stand and encourage them to fulfill their pledge. We also applaud the steps taken by such companies as BP, Shell, General Electric, Cinergy, Duke Energy, and DuPont, all of which have moved ahead of the pace of government action through innovative measures implemented within their companies in the U.S. and around the world. In so doing they have offered timely leadership.

                          Numerous positive actions to prevent and mitigate climate change are being implemented across our society by state and local governments, churches, smaller businesses, and individuals. These commendable efforts focus on such matters as energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy, low CO2 emitting technologies, and the purchase of hybrid vehicles. These efforts can easily be shown to save money, save energy, reduce global warming pollution as well as air pollution that harm human health, and eventually pay for themselves. There is much more to be done, but these pioneers are already helping to show the way forward.

                          Finally, while we must reduce our global warming pollution to help mitigate the impacts of climate change, as a society and as individuals we must also help the poor adapt to the significant harm that global warming will cause.

                          CONCLUSION

                          We the undersigned pledge to act on the basis of the claims made in this document. We will not only teach the truths communicated here but also seek ways to implement the actions that follow from them. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, we urge all who read this declaration to join us in this effort.
                          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                          “not all there” - you know who you are

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                            Are some Christians confused? Is climate change a sign of the end of days, or something else?
                            I found this evangelical call to action:
                            Chritians are not a monolithic group - that much should be obvious (catholic, baptist, methodist, presbyterian etc. etc.).

                            But many are very much confused as regards science and faith and how to differentiate between people that are just feigning some sort of commitment to their ideals to gain their support and those that represent some element of truth in one area but that promte other agendas contrary to their ideals.

                            Jim
                            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Chritians are not a monolithic group - that much should be obvious (catholic, baptist, methodist, presbyterian etc. etc.).

                              But many are very much confused as regards science and faith and how to differentiate between people that are just feigning some sort of commitment to their ideals to gain their support and those that represent some element of truth in one area but that promte other agendas contrary to their ideals.

                              Jim
                              Christians think, as if it were a game of soccer, that God was dribbling the ball, about to shoot and score, but actually, he passed the ball to the Christian wing-forward, who, catastrophically fumbling and off balance, let it slip to the Devil’s centre-half.

                              This is to state the issue clearly in Christianese.
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                Christians think, as if it were a game of soccer, that God was dribbling the ball, about to shoot and score, but actually, he passed the ball to the Christian wing-forward, who, catastrophically fumbling and off balance, let it slip to the Devil’s centre-half.

                                This is to state the issue clearly in Christianese.
                                Not worthy of comment FF. But if you change your mind and decide to discuss more seriously, I'll be willing to talk.

                                Jim
                                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 02:32 PM
                                56 responses
                                434 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by Juvenal, Yesterday, 09:54 AM
                                14 responses
                                126 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:50 AM
                                15 responses
                                124 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by seer, 09-28-2020, 05:35 PM
                                31 responses
                                247 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-27-2020, 07:37 PM
                                33 responses
                                226 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X