Page 96 of 146 FirstFirst ... 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 ... LastLast
Results 2,376 to 2,400 of 3644
  1. #2376
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    You guys still arguing with that bot?
    Believe it or not a substantial portion of the population doesn't believe there's a greenhouse effect, that CO2 and other greenhouse gases regulate temperature. They are not bots. They are your fellow Americans.

  2. #2377
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    13,654
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Believe it or not a substantial portion of the population doesn't believe there's a greenhouse effect, that CO2 and other greenhouse gases regulate temperature. They are not bots. They are your fellow Americans.
    Oh, I'm well aware of that.

    But that RJ thing - that's a bot.

  3. #2378
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    Oh, I'm well aware of that.

    But that RJ thing - that's a bot.
    It does kind of seem like a bot with a really narrow range of key words that it recognizes. Looks like the programmers were a lot more interested in climate change denialism than snow sports.

  4. #2379
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Botlike, because he doesn't understand scientific concepts and relies on wattsupwiththat along with other propaganda sites, but still more Timmeh than bot.

  5. #2380
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - Does Ron believe there's no greenhouse effect at all? He claims his chart is for year 2005 alone and forcings are not constant throughout time, which is true, but the greenhouse effect is still the most dominant climate forcing throughout time.
    Deflect, deflect, deflect.... It's your chart, not mine. I claim the chart is for 2005?? The chart says its for 2005! And remember, we are specifically talking about CO2 and it being "the guerrilla in the climate system that controls these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history." Which it clearly isn't, and it's amazing you are still grasping at straws trying to defend your case.

    -- "invigorated moisture and precipitation" just means the Earth's total rainfall goes up and therefore the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere increases, decreasing the greenhouse effect. That's taken directly from Ron's wikipedia article.
    You are going to have to direct me to what wikipedia article you are referencing. I don't take issue with the idea that weathering can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but its quite speculative to think that this can start ice ages. A simple thought experiment raises some questions - If, as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases from 240ppm->250ppm->260ppm and so on, and eventually we reach some magical CO2 level where we now get this "invigorated precipitation" leading to rocks absorbing more CO2 and atmospheric CO2 levels falling, why does this invigorated precipitation and CO2 sink continue as CO2 levels fall back to 260ppm->250ppm and so on?
    --- Ron didn't/doesn't understand how greenhouse gasses are stored in soil but the chemistry is simple: H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3 (soil), H2CO3 + CaSiO3 -> CaCO3 + SiO2 +H2O
    I'm well aware that greenhouse gasses can be stored in the soil and grasses. It's why grass fed beef can be environmentally friendly! I was not aware that rocks can absorb CO2.

    ---- On the previous page Ron wrote "Some cooling force greater than the warming force provided by CO2 had to occur to stop the warming. Basic physics." In reality it's natural processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere which then makes it possible for the planet to cool down. There are other factors too, but those factors are not a so called "cooling force" that somehow invalidates the greenhouse effect of CO2. Ron did correctly use the term "forcings" the second time around when he cited wikipedia but the first time around he got it wrong.
    Please demonstrate how I was using the forcing term incorrectly the first time. I have been using the term the same way this entire discussion.

    It's hilarious how you still seem to think you have all this figured out, when there is no scientific consensus on this subject.
    ------ When comparing Venus, Mars, and the Earth you just calculate emissiviity and solar intensity (W/m*m) of each planet. The math is straightforward, and corresponds with observations. The greenhouse effect on Venus is primarily caused by CO2. Ron's argument that there's no greenhouse effect on Venus and instead it's the extreme amount of pressure is another wattsupwiththat slight of hand.
    Did I ever say there is no greenhouse effect on Venus? I said that the massive difference in temperature between the two planets has more to do with the differences in atmospheric pressure.

    This whole tangent stems from you implying that there is little or no CO2 on Mars, and that is the reason why it is cold.
    ------ The video does explains the graph. The video makes the point that deniers engage in: 1) Cherry Picking 2) Over Simplification, and 3) Jumping to Conclusions. Ron's graph is an Over Simplification. I used CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system as a metaphor while the video uses an angry beast as metaphor. There were also examples provided on page 95 and 97 of this thread.
    No, the video does not explain the graph from your POV that "CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system that controls these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history." I'm hearing him talk about other factors like solar output, position of continents, icesheets, etc. as well.

    Please tell me how it is an oversimplification, or cherry picking for me to present a graph of earth's temperatures going back millions of years which shows no correlation with CO2 levels? But somehow I'm supposed to believe that CO2 was in control of these climactic shifts?

  6. #2381
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,070
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  7. #2382
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    If I'm a bot, then I must be a real good one? The time of AI is here sooner than we expected...

    MV likes to think he knows everything, but he doesn't. Too bad you lackeys can't see it.

  8. #2383
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,365
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    If I'm a bot, then I must be a real good one? The time of AI is here sooner than we expected...

    MV likes to think he knows everything, but he doesn't. Too bad you lackeys can't see it.
    Shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt. You open your mouth and spew cunt chunks every time

  9. #2384
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    - Ron's chart is from his radiative forcing wikipedia article in post #2422 on the previous page. Ron's chart, which is his argument in chart form, shows the largest radiative forcing component is greenhouse gas. The chart directly contradicts Ron's idiotic argument that it's "other factors and interactions" that have greater radiative force on the climate than GHGs.


    -- Ron's other reference is in post #2409 and the answer to his question is in post #2396.


    --- Ron and his wattsupwiththat source are making elementary mistakes WRT to Venus and Mars. They are trying and failing to reinvent astrophysics. It's not the differences in atmospheric pressure it's the carbon dioxide that is key to both the Venusian and Mar's drastic Climates: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6052



    ---- WRT to the video and the chart, each climate epoch has different conditions. For example the cooling in Ron's chart over the last 55 million year is due to uplift weathering, also discussed in Ron's #2409 referenced article, which took CO2 out of the atmosphere shifting the planet from a greenhouse to a icehouse.

    68 million years ago India began moving towards the Eurasian continent. Starting about 49 million years ago it starts making contact and by 35 million years ago it’s at ramming speed has hit Eurasia and it is creating the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau.

    These massive geologic features create uplift weathering. When storms hit mountains the storm rises and cools and the moisture condenses and falls as moisture, rain or snow. So we have this large topographic feature, the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau, close to a warm ocean and that warm ocean air coming off of the Indian Ocean towards the Tibetan plateau and the Himalayas. We get seasonal monsoons and a lot of precipitation.

    India is still ramming into Eurasia and what is happening to the stuff in between is being pushed up in the rocks as they bang into each other are being broken and sediment is being created in this high terrain. So high terrain, moist air masses, and we also have rain when it forms in the atmosphere it creates a week carbonic acid.

    The carbon dioxide in the air mixes with the water from the raindrops and so the rain that is falling is weakly acidic. This weekly acidic solution when it hits broken up rock with lots of surface area it ends up dissolving them. A chemical reaction takes place that binds the CO2 that was in the air with those newly formed compounds that are forming in the reaction and that CO2 is sequestered. So it is effectively slowly over time taking down the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere through this process called uplift weathering or hydrolysis.

    So when we have continent to continent collisions we have a mechanism for changing the global carbon budget in the atmosphere.

    Greenhouse gas concentration especially CO2 are THE most powerful forcing agent in Earth’s climate history. So after CO2 drops to icehouse levels other, weaker forcings start affecting climate like solar intensity, astronomical variations, etc. See post #2401 and #2396

  10. #2385
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    "In 1982, 7 years before I was even born, Exxon accurately predicted that by this year, 2019, the Earth would hit a CO2 concentration of 415 ppm and a temperature of 1ºC. Dr. Hoffert, is that correct?" - AOC

    "We were excellent scientists." - Dr Hoffert

    House Democrats on Wednesday laid out evidence that the oil behemoth ExxonMobil had known since the 1970s about the potential for a climate crisis and intentionally sowed doubt about it. One of those testifying was Martin Hoffert, a scientist consultant for Exxon Research and Engineering in the 1980s. Responding to the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Hoffert testified that in 1982, Exxon scientists predicted how carbon dioxide levels would rise and heat the planet as humans burned more fossil fuels.


  11. #2386
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  12. #2387
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - Ron's chart is from his radiative forcing wikipedia article in post #2422 on the previous page. Ron's chart, which is his argument in chart form, shows the largest radiative forcing component is greenhouse gas. The chart directly contradicts Ron's idiotic argument that it's "other factors and interactions" that have greater radiative force on the climate than GHGs.
    MV continues to demonstrate that he is a know it all that knows nothing. As I've already told you, your chart shows the different radiative forces acting on climate for the year 2005 only. We are talking about CO2's control over earth's climactic shifts between greenhouse earth and icebox earth, of which, that chart tells us absolutely nothing.
    -- Ron's other reference is in post #2409 and the answer to his question is in post #2396.
    So I guess this is the lone, unsourced sentence you are referring to from wikipedia?- "Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2)."

    And your unsourced paragraph from post #2396: "For the cooling: The climate system tends to operate with thermostatic properties. If it starts getting too warm some properties kick in the cause it to cool back down. For example, if temperature starts getting warm then feedback from invigorated precipitation and invigorated moisture increases chemical weathering which takes CO2 out of the atmosphere which then causes things to cool down. As the planet cools the oceans cool and because cold water has a higher degree of CO2 solubility it soaks up carbon from the atmosphere."

    This theory makes little sense if you look at the simple thought experiment I gave you, which you ignored: If, as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases from 240ppm->250ppm->260ppm and so on, and eventually we reach some magical CO2 level where we now get this "invigorated precipitation" leading to rocks absorbing more CO2 and atmospheric CO2 levels falling, why does this invigorated precipitation and CO2 sink continue as CO2 levels fall back to 260ppm->250ppm and so on?

    --- Ron and his wattsupwiththat source are making elementary mistakes WRT to Venus and Mars. They are trying and failing to reinvent astrophysics. It's not the differences in atmospheric pressure it's the carbon dioxide that is key to both the Venusian and Mar's drastic Climates: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6052
    What WattsUpWithThat source are you referring to?

    We have already discussed the logarithmic diminutive effect of CO2, so I know you know that more CO2 does not lead to a a linear increase in temperature.

    Do you deny that air pressure enhances warming? Why is it that Death Valley is the hottest place on earth? Is it because there is more CO2 over Death Valley? Or is it because the air pressure is higher due to it being 250ft below sea level? Or why do underground mines get hot?

    ---- WRT to the video and the chart, each climate epoch has different conditions. For example the cooling in Ron's chart over the last 55 million year is due to uplift weathering, also discussed in Ron's #2409 referenced article, which took CO2 out of the atmosphere shifting the planet from a greenhouse to a icehouse.

    68 million years ago India began moving towards the Eurasian continent. Starting about 49 million years ago it starts making contact and by 35 million years ago it’s at ramming speed has hit Eurasia and it is creating the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau.

    These massive geologic features create uplift weathering. When storms hit mountains the storm rises and cools and the moisture condenses and falls as moisture, rain or snow. So we have this large topographic feature, the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau, close to a warm ocean and that warm ocean air coming off of the Indian Ocean towards the Tibetan plateau and the Himalayas. We get seasonal monsoons and a lot of precipitation.

    India is still ramming into Eurasia and what is happening to the stuff in between is being pushed up in the rocks as they bang into each other are being broken and sediment is being created in this high terrain. So high terrain, moist air masses, and we also have rain when it forms in the atmosphere it creates a week carbonic acid.

    The carbon dioxide in the air mixes with the water from the raindrops and so the rain that is falling is weakly acidic. This weekly acidic solution when it hits broken up rock with lots of surface area it ends up dissolving them. A chemical reaction takes place that binds the CO2 that was in the air with those newly formed compounds that are forming in the reaction and that CO2 is sequestered. So it is effectively slowly over time taking down the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere through this process called uplift weathering or hydrolysis.

    So when we have continent to continent collisions we have a mechanism for changing the global carbon budget in the atmosphere.
    This is the single sentence you are referring to?- "Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years."

    How do you not understand that this is a theory and not consensus?

    Just for laughs since you seem know more about these cycles than scientists, what is your explanation for 145mm years ago when there was a large drop in temperature corresponding with an increase in CO2 levels, followed by an increase in temperature while CO2 levels were falling? Or 290mm years ago when temperatures increased massively, yet CO2 stayed low? Or whats going on 439mm years ago? Or how about during the pre-cambrian?

    Greenhouse gas concentration especially CO2 are THE most powerful forcing agent in Earth’s climate history. So after CO2 drops to icehouse levels other, weaker forcings start affecting climate like solar intensity, astronomical variations, etc. See post #2401 and #2396
    More laughs. There is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature as you look at earth's climate history, but somehow it comes in at #1??

  13. #2388
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    - Ron's (post #2422) chart, per the forcing discussion, shows the components of radiative forcing. The largest radiative forcing components are greenhouse gasses.

    - Ron's thought experiment is overly simplistic. It ignores, among other things, spatial variabilty along with other feedbacks just like Ron's wattsupwiththat source's rebuttal did with the warming. The glacial cooling process is documented in the scientific literature. Just as wattsupwiththat lied about about cherry picked proxies and ignored the simple fact that the Hemisphere’s warmed at different times Ron is either ignoring or choosing not to discover on his own the various processes taking place.

    - Venus underwent a greenhouse phase associated with rapid water loss and very high temperatures. With water cooked off, and silicate weathering reactions that extract CO2 from the atmosphere no longer happening CO2 reaches high levels. As a result, and the opposite of Mars, a thick dense CO2 atmosphere keeps Venus extremely hot.

    -- Wikipedia aside, uplift weathering is the prevailing theory and broadly speaking it is the scientific consensus. The video explains the broad strokes of the other epochs. If anyone is curious, including Ron, they can look it up.

    - Yep on a geologic timescale atmospheric CO2 is number #1 for Earth, just like CO2 is #1 for hot Venus and the low CO2 concentration is for cool Mars.
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 10-25-2019 at 11:39 AM.

  14. #2389
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    27,915
    Glad to see MV maintaining focus on the argument and not surprised that RJ continues to focus on ad hominem attacks.
    Props MV.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  15. #2390
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Glad to see MV maintaining focus on the argument and not surprised that RJ continues to focus on ad hominem attacks.
    Props MV.
    I'll get back to MV when I have time tomorrow, but this is just too much coming from you. How many times are you going to accuse me of ad hominem attacks while ignoring all the attacks I receive? MV started attacking me because thats alarmist playbook #1. When you are totally lost in an argument it becomes time to start name calling and smearing.

    And "maintaining focus on the argument"? He is all over the place. All you have to do is look at the climate graph I've posted multiple times to see that his arguments are totally incoherent.

  16. #2391
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    In the unlikely event anyone is in any way persuaded by Ron's specious arguments or wants to know about this stuff but finds the back and forth tedious then watching the video is recommended.

    The so called thought experiments, the chart, and the bulk of Ron's arguments make repeated use of 1) Cherry Picking 2) Over Simplification, and 3) Jumping to Conclusions.

    Ron's graph is an Over Simplification of complex events occurring over millions of years that Ron then uses to Jump to Conclusions. It's cynical and disingenuous.

  17. #2392
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    10,525
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    Shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt. You open your mouth and spew cunt chunks every time
    Serious question. What are cunt chunks? Are those babies? or blood clots or something else?

  18. #2393
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    13,654
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    If I'm a bot, then I must be a real good one?
    Not really.

  19. #2394
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    35,361
    Ron understands science like Taco Bell understands Mexican Food
    Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident

  20. #2395
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    MV likes to think he knows everything, but he doesn't. Too bad you lackeys can't see it.
    LOL, you're getting paid to post all day on a bulletin board (I assume more than one, actually, is that right?) and we're the lackeys. I thought we were buds that were going to ride together this winter!

  21. #2396
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Ron understands science like Taco Bell understands Mexican Food
    Ron is going to pop in and do the wattsupwiththat, notrickzone, Breitbart PV=nRT thing about Death Valley and Everest then talk about pressure on Venus to argue against the existence of a greenhouse effect. The conspiratorial nonsense will proceed on the assumption that climatologists and astrophysicists are unaware of the ideal gas law.

  22. #2397
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - The chart, per the forcing discussion, shows the components of radiative forcing. The largest radiative forcing components are greenhouse gasses.
    I can't believe you are still clinging to this chart. It has absolutely zero relevance to what we are discussing. You should be embarrassed you even brought it up in the first place, yet you can't even give it up now?

    - The though experiment ignores spatial variabilty just like Ron's wattsupwiththat source's rebuttal did with the warming. The glacial cooling process is documented in the scientific literature. Wattsupwiththat lied and the proxies were not cherry picked, it is just the simple fact that the Hemisphere’s warmed at different times and the proxyies show that. A similar thing, but due to different proccesess, happens with the cooling.
    Oh there we go - spacial variability!! What a convenient cop out from my thought experiment, too bad it doesn't make much sense. It's such a round-about and convoluted way to think about things. There is a very simple explanation that, as the planet warms, CO2 stored in the oceans is released on a ~800 year lag time, then there is some change in the radiative forces that cause the planet to start cooling, which causes the oceans to start absorbing CO2 after ~800 year lag.

    I'm not sure why you keep bringing the WattsUpWithThat rebuttal up, I dismissed it long ago.

    - Venus underwent a greenhouse phase associated with rapid water loss and very high temperatures. With water cooked off, and silicate weathering reactions that extract CO2 from the atmosphere no longer happening allowed CO2 to reach high levels. As a result, and the opposite of Mars, a thick dense CO2 atmosphere keeps Venus extremely hot.
    I'm not sure what the point of continuing this side tangent is. You made a post implying that the reason Mars is cold is because of a lack of CO2, and I point out to you that actually, Mars has quite a bit of CO2 in its atmosphere.

    Once again, the extreme temperature of Venus has more to do with it's extreme air pressure than the greenhouse effect of CO2.

    -- Wikipedia aside, uplift weathering is the prevailing theory and broadly speaking it is the scientific consensus. The video explains the broad strokes of the other epochs. If anyone is curious, including Ron, they can look it up.
    It is a theory, not concensus. For example, here is a paper from 2019 (using your past logic, its recency must mean that is correct) that casts doubt on your attribution of the cooling over the past 55 million years to lowering CO2 levels: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa...2-indicated-by

    "However, the various feedback mechanisms affecting Earth system sensitivity in an ice-free world are still poorly understood. In summary, we find pCO2 of ∼450–600 ppm recorded by Southern Hemisphere fossil plants throughout the Eocene—significantly less than the forcing required by modeling, suggesting that climate sensitivity was elevated and/or that other climate forcings were stronger than previously assumed."

    The entire video is an oversimplification and doesn't explain any epochs.

    - Yep atmospheric CO2 is number #1 for earth, just like CO2 is #1 for hot Venus and the lack thereof for cool Mars.
    CO2 isn't even the #1 greenhouse gas for earth, water vapor is. Mars has 11.5x more CO2 in it's atmosphere than earth.

    It's pretty obvious to anyone not blinded by their pre-set conclusions that CO2 "is NOT the guerrilla in the climate system, and CO2 DOESN'T control these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history."
    Name:  record.jpg
Views: 277
Size:  72.1 KB

  23. #2398
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    In the unlikely event anyone is in any way persuaded by Ron's specious arguments or wants to know about this stuff but finds the back and forth tedious then watching the video is recommended.

    The so called thought experiments, the chart, and the bulk of Ron's arguments make repeated use of 1) Cherry Picking 2) Over Simplification, and 3) Jumping to Conclusions.

    Ron's graph is an Over Simplification of complex events occurring over millions of years that Ron then uses to Jump to Conclusions. It's cynical and disingenuous.
    The video you posted is a joke and incredibly lazy from you. The video itself is an example of 1) cherry picking, 2) over simplification, and 3) jumping to conclusions.

    My graph is an oversimplification? dafuq?

  24. #2399
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Ron is going to pop in and do the wattsupwiththat, notrickzone, Breitbart PV=nRT thing about Death Valley and Everest then talk about pressure on Venus to argue against the existence of a greenhouse effect. The conspiratorial nonsense will proceed on the assumption that climatologists and astrophysicists are unaware of the ideal gas law.
    Where have I argued against a greenhouse effect?

  25. #2400
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    Not really.
    Leaving the substance of the arguments out of it, you have to admit that I must be a pretty good bot to be able to write as much as I have with so few grammatical mistakes. I was even able to find a picture of snowboards and photoshop a message for TGR on it!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •