Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Are we in a runaway greenhouse event? Carbon and methane etc., from man, animals, and natural sources could result in one, or already is!

  1. #1 Are we in a runaway greenhouse event? Carbon and methane etc., from man, animals, and natural sources could result in one, or already is! 
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Clearly, greenhouse gas emissions are helping to drive all the dramatic climate changes we are seeing these days. Massive storms, wildfires in previously wet, stable forests, rising seas levels with devastating coastal results - surely enhanced by greenhouse emissions. And they will be getting worse, much more than most people think.

    There are massive amounts of carbon locked up is tundra, and peat deposits, etc. There are also enormous amounts of methane-hydrates in the arctic, were they are shallow enough (or warming enough) that water pressure cannot prevent methane out-gassing. All of these sources, which are considerable, are already releasing greenhouse gases, and the rates are increasing. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and natural sources for it are a major threat for a runaway greenhouse event

    Have read a number of conflicting reports regarding the possibility we may already be in a runaway greenhouse event. All the recent catastrophic weather could have me spooked, but with the polar ice cap melting so much and not returning in the winter as much is cause for concern. Greenland is believed to be in a terminal meltdown condition that is irreversible. There seems a lot of talk about doing something about all the human emissions, but it seems that we may have kick-started natural out-gassing that, combined with human output, could be ruinous for us all in 50 years, or less.

    Indeed, things look pretty nasty right now. In many parts of the world they would say that we do not have to wait 50 years. The impact is upon us right now, and there is no reason to believe things are going stabilize, much less get better. As usual, time will tell. But the odds appear that what time will tell us is things are going to get increasingly gruesome for more and more of the world's people. And it could be too late to stop the carnage.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,764
    The way things are going it won't be long before I'll have less journey to take a dip in the sea.

    https://earth.org/the-biggest-enviro...-our-lifetime/

    COP26 just a couple of months away.
    Last chance yet again to save the planet.
    Most delegates will be flying in.
    Do as they say, not as they do.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The way things are going it won't be long before I'll have less journey to take a dip in the sea.
    The way things are going, others may have beach-front property in the not too distant future.

    Depending on various factors regarding rates of sea level rise, and elevation aspects, that may or may not be a good thing, as others have found out, or will before long.........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Most delegates will be flying in.
    Do as they say, not as they do.
    A petty and pointless complaint imo - if they were living stone age lifestyles would you take them more seriously? No-one should have to stop being a functional member of society to be able to expect their governments and community leaders to take the climate problem - that they already know is serious - seriously. Starting from high economic dependence on fossil fuels whatever we do on emissions comes with a downpayment in emissions - whether it is building nuclear power plants or factories for solar and grid scale batteries that can make solar and grid scale batteries with less and ultimately no fossil fuels. Spending some emissions achieving global agreements on emissions reductions isn't hypocrisy, it is pragmatic.

    Much as many people and orgs want to make it all about personal lifestyle choices I think the problem is economy wide and solutions must come from economy wide change that makes everyone's lifestyle choices low emissions, including the extravagantly wasteful lifestyles of people who don't care.

    If your nation were being invaded you would not require people who call on the government for action to have to be buying their own guns and bullets before their concerns are taken seriously. Nor expect the Intelligence analysts and military commanders who know all about it to do so - or call them hypocrites when they do their jobs, using the tools and capabilities they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,897
    Quote Originally Posted by ken fabos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    most delegates will be flying in.
    Do as they say, not as they do.
    a petty and pointless complaint imo - if they were living stone age lifestyles would you take them more seriously? No-one should have to stop being a functional member of society to be able to expect their governments and community leaders to take the climate problem - that they already know is serious - seriously. Starting from high economic dependence on fossil fuels whatever we do on emissions comes with a downpayment in emissions - whether it is building nuclear power plants or factories for solar and grid scale batteries that can make solar and grid scale batteries with less and ultimately no fossil fuels. Spending some emissions achieving global agreements on emissions reductions isn't hypocrisy, it is pragmatic.

    Much as many people and orgs want to make it all about personal lifestyle choices i think the problem is economy wide and solutions must come from economy wide change that makes everyone's lifestyle choices low emissions, including the extravagantly wasteful lifestyles of people who don't care.

    If your nation were being invaded you would not require people who call on the government for action to have to be buying their own guns and bullets before their concerns are taken seriously. Nor expect the intelligence analysts and military commanders who know all about it to do so - or call them hypocrites when they do their jobs, using the tools and capabilities they have.
    like
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,764
    COP26: delegates will arrive for a junket, most will say little or nothing, fly back and nothing will happen until the next summit which will again be the last chance to save the planet.
    Greta, if she attends will not be flying in and won't be gorging herself on Scottish salmon, either.
    We have to point the accusing finger at big business, the car and aircraft industry, party politics.
    Humans are naturally greedy, grabbing what they can get.
    Other animals just take what they need.
    Right down to the likes of David Attenborough who has flown millions of air miles in pursuit of his hobby, Now he's telling the little people not to fly. It suits him not to now because of his age.

    I'd put more trust in James Lovelock. Aged now 102, he got it right decades ago but few listened.
    A rise of just one degree in temperature causes a much bigger problem in climate patterns.
    His analogy with smokers is spot on. Too late they realise there was a price to pay for their indulgence.

    So what's happening in the UK, the first industrial nation which should now be taking a lead?
    Well, not much.
    Attitude seems to be that if the likes of China, India, Brazil, US are not going to play their part then why should we?
    It won't matter one jot if the UK goes all the way and the others don't.
    Sales of petrol and diesel cars are still way outstripping those of electric vehicles.
    What we have is not much more than a bunch of anarchists called Extinction Rebellion.
    Then there are the climate sceptics like Lord Lawson of Blaby who considers climate change is overstated, and most people subscribe to this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    COP26: delegates will arrive for a junket, most will say little or nothing, fly back and nothing will happen until the next summit which will again be the last chance to save the planet.

    Attitude seems to be that if the likes of China, India, Brazil, US are not going to play their part then why should we?

    It is like a repeat of a bad movie. Lots of people go to see it, wring their hands about what to do, propose lofty goals and then go home and hope for the best.

    Hope is not a good strategy for what ails us. Mass action is needed now, but all we get are those feel-good "lofty goals".

    China* clearly isn't concerned about the massive amounts of CO2 they are cranking out - by far more than any other country in the world. They seem to enjoy making more and more of it. And the rest of the world encourages them by buying all their cheap products. The whole disaster of climate change is self-perpetuating. It seems like the "buyers" need to force the issue, but likely never will.

    It appears real solutions will evade us. One can only ask if there is intelligent life anywhere in the universe, since its presence here is more than questionable.


    "Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined"

    * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    776
    Attitude seems to be that if the likes of China, India, Brazil, US are not going to play their part then why should we?
    It won't matter one jot if the UK goes all the way and the others don't.
    Ah, kindergarten logic - "If everyone else doesn't do the right thing first when we don't it will be their fault". But despite being illogical as well as unethical and ultimately harmful to their own nation it strikes a chord with people who don't want to and sets up a feedback loop amongst nations that justifies the inaction of each and reinforces inaction of all. Such "logic" that serves us so badly should be called out rather than repeated.

    Have we really failed already? Having not really tried - with a significant component of trying hard to prevent trying - we get declarations of defeat with urging to stop trying. Mobilising the power of people who don't want to in the cause of inaction isn't such a big ask as mobilising people to support strong action but it requires the use of misleading information and faulty logic. Like that global conferences to make global agreements shouldn't take place - or should be criticised as hypocrisy, by people who take no responsibility for their own emissions - because it involves air travel.

    Ten years ago solar and wind were more expensive than fossil fuel energy almost everywhere. Now they are not - a profound shift, but it still takes more time than a decade to flow through. Yet it is flowing through; the rate of growth of clean energy now exceeds growth of dirty energy. That doesn't immediately make the existing dirty energy go away or even stop it's growth but it is a real milestone marking a real fork in the road. To expect what have largely been empty gesture policies (with some giving of enough rope) to have had a lot of impact on emissions already seems optimistic - yet those empty gestures have led to real and significant technologies that can be and are being built at significant scales.

    But I think the most significant short term impact of the successes of wind and solar is political; whether it will be wind and solar that ultimately do the job or not, their near term successes are undercutting the alarmist economic fear that has prevented significant commitments to zero emissions - and world leaders even saying they commit their nations to far off targets they can pass to others is a profound change. Less than 1 year ago the USA had a President and Congress fiercely opposed to strong climate action.

    A lot more is going on now than protest movements - the politics of obstruction rely heavily on encouraging the view that people who care about the issue must be extremists like that (we are not); real action through significant policy now has real mainstream support. The result of that will still take time to flow through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    The result of that will still take time to flow through.
    This is certain, indeed perhaps the biggest problem of all - time. And it is true that more than protest is going on to try and change things.

    Still, it does seem that the movement to alter the equation in favor of reduced emissions is way too slow, and that the time required for "flow through" may take too long. Clearly we have no other option.

    As always, time will tell. One can hope that all you have posted works out. Doubtless that "the most significant short term impact of the successes of wind and solar is political". And it is also true that the political impact is driving a strong mindset in many who want these changes to be successful. We certainly need a mass acceptance for it to stand a chance.

    It does seem that time is not on our side. Global population continues to rise, along with emissions and climate change. Most people, for good reason, fear more about the "here and now" than the future.

    How we get on a working, viable path that leads to sufficient moderation of the problem is rather murky, at best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,764
    I get the impression that many people think that God or aliens will come down to rescue us if things get hopelessly out of hand.
    The first appeals to evangelists in particular. It was God who gave us the world's resources to exploit and God will fix it.
    The second appeals to the New Age culture.
    There is also a third type who act like irresponsible gamblers.

    By our greed and miscalculation we have violated Mother Earth and now she responds.
    According to Lovelock our planet behaves like a living organism.

    Another theory is that any habitable planets with resources and intelligent life will die in this way.
    A very big price has to be paid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    I get the impression that many people think that God or aliens will come down to rescue us if things get hopelessly out of hand.
    The first appeals to evangelists in particular. It was God who gave us the world's resources to exploit and God will fix it.
    The second appeals to the New Age culture.
    There is also a third type who act like irresponsible gamblers.

    By our greed and miscalculation we have violated Mother Earth and now she responds.
    According to Lovelock our planet behaves like a living organism.

    Another theory is that any habitable planets with resources and intelligent life will die in this way.
    A very big price has to be paid.
    There are also many people who want to face up to it - and most of them are not activists or extremists. That includes scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs who can and are making low emissions technologies - potentially zero emissions technologies - work at costs that don't require loss of prosperity to reduce emissions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    There are also many people who want to face up to it - and most of them are not activists or extremists. That includes scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs who can and are making low emissions technologies - potentially zero emissions technologies - work at costs that don't require loss of prosperity to reduce emissions.
    The problem is not the lack of interest in doing something about it. The issue is the scale of the emissions, and the number of people who are not sufficiently concerned, or capable of doing anything. They are largely the ignorant masses who vastly out number those "who want to face up to it". With about 7.7 billion people on the planet, it is pretty easy to estimate why this is such a difficult proposal.

    And the time for corrective action is rapidly vanishing, all while the solutions are still being debated. The final analysis is that time is not on our side. It is decidedly running against us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    COP26: delegates will arrive for a junket, most will say little or nothing, fly back and nothing will happen until the next summit which will again be the last chance to save the planet.
    A report today from the UN indicates the world is failing badly at controlling emissions, and we are not getting where we need to be (1,2). This report demonstrates the real problems we are facing, and the lack of sufficient effort to combat climate change. As noted in the quote above, it appears the "powers that be" are not doing much of anything to solve the issue. There is no denying this reality as we watch the global impact of climate change, and review the newest UN report on it.

    It is difficult to perceive anything being done to effectively mitigate the situation. Green technologies developed and deployed are not likely to solve the problem by themselves. So the issue still remains unsolved, and is just getting worse. Without a firm, binding commitment from the major players, the situation is certain to continuously deteriorate.

    It would be nice to think we can do something about all this. Perhaps the next COP26 meeting will make us all feel better.


    "Climate change: UN warning over nations' climate plans"

    1. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58600723


    "UN: Climate pledges put world on ‘catastrophic pathway’"

    2. https://apnews.com/article/europe-bu...14c0070142ff59
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,764
    But what can governments actually do?
    They know that if they deliberately shrink the economy which what is needed they'll get voted out.
    Politicians in the free world know that their jobs are only temporary, and they might be happy to pass the buck.
    But they still want to leave a legacy and it's not going to be a collapsed economy.

    Capitalism must now come under scrutiny because every business needs to grow.
    I'm a bit tired of hearing about a company's green credentials because it is usually just a promise.

    Can we forfeit the game which has given us the modern world?
    What would you get governments to do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    But what can governments actually do?

    What would you get governments to do?

    What governments could do is move towards the only real and likely solution to global warming - laws requiring decreases in emissions, and funding for direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 using many installations operating around the world. But the costs are much higher than the "feel good" promises that the politicians and companies make. Since the modest green applications of solar, wind and electric will not turn the tide, it seem that DAC is the only realistic alternative.

    A recent article* provides a look at this technology, and the potential it has for saving the planet. Environmental recovery could be very big business, employing a lot of people. The problem with it, like so many other things, is the cost. Who is going to pay for it? All of us should be demanding to pay for it, considering the alternatives. And if we don't pay for it, Mother Nature is showing us those alternatives.

    Quoting from the article about the need for DAC:

    "“We have to try to proceed. There’s no choice. We have to sequester carbon at a high rate,” said Ken Alex, director of Project Climate at the Center for Law, Energy and Environment at the University of California, Berkeley. Carbon-capture technology has been around for a while, he noted, but was considered too expensive. “The price has already come down dramatically, and as it scales up, I think it’s not unrealistic to think that this is a viable opportunity,” he said."

    end quote

    Whatever the case, we are all going to pay for the efforts to reduce climate change by advancing such technologies, or we will pay for it a different way by doing too little, too late. Based on past inactivity, the latter seems the most likely course. By doing too little to change the equation, Mother Nature will deal with the overpopulation that is driving the global catastrophe we are looking at now, and in the future. One way or another, there will be a heavy price to pay.


    "These companies are sucking carbon out of the atmosphere — and investors are piling in"

    * https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/thes...tmosphere.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    776
    It is still cheaper, easier and more effective to invest in growth of clean energy than Direct Air Capture or any other Carbon Capture and Storage. Investments in clean energy production deliver useful energy but Capture and Storage requires more clean energy to make fossil fuels low emissions than using clean energy directly to replace fossil fuels.

    The IEA estimated that renewable energy accounted for 90% of all growth in new energy in 2020. Sustained renewable energy capacity growth at above 20% pa is remarkable - especially given the opposition and obstruction by mainstream politics; energy policy has been notable for limited ambition and compromises that undercut their effectiveness arising from the conflicted politics. Renewables are better placed to achieve more growth than ever before - and that flows through to potential for more ambitious policies.

    There is still room for pessimism - the capacity for bad governance to make a manageable problem much worse cannot be underestimate (climate science denial being a prime example) but there is also a lot that we can be optimistic about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Helix View Post
    Environmental recovery could be very big business, employing a lot of people. The problem with it, like so many other things, is the cost. Who is going to pay for it? All of us should be demanding to pay for it, considering the alternatives. And if we don't pay for it, Mother Nature is showing us those alternatives.
    How many is a lot?
    Will taxes alone pay for it?

    There is a stark truth here and no doubt controversial.
    There are far too many people on this planet.
    You couldn't argue there are far too many elephants or chimpanzees.
    Mother nature left to itself would limit any population explosion.
    In the last century we had 2 world wars, but since then the human population has tripled.
    Humans 1 Nature 0.
    So the planet tries again.
    Should she be defeated there will a bigger price to pay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    It is still cheaper, easier and more effective to invest in growth of clean energy than Direct Air Capture or any other Carbon Capture and Storage. Investments in clean energy production deliver useful energy but Capture and Storage requires more clean energy to make fossil fuels low emissions than using clean energy directly to replace fossil fuels.
    The UN experts took all things into account about the future of climate change. These people know more about this problem than anyone else on the planet. And they have declared that too little is being done to prevent a ‘catastrophic pathway’". This report indicates that all efforts at clean energy and growing plants is not going to change the equation. All of these approaches were considered in this evaluation, which most rational people are not going to dismiss with a wave of the hand. We are NOT on any kind of path for changing the global problem. There is nothing more to be said about it. Any doubt, watch the global weather conditions and the steep rise in emissions which are ongoing. Most of us have to buy into what the real experts say, and they say we are in deep trouble despite ALL efforts to turn things around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Helix View Post
    Environmental recovery could be very big business, employing a lot of people. The problem with it, like so many other things, is the cost. Who is going to pay for it? All of us should be demanding to pay for it, considering the alternatives. And if we don't pay for it, Mother Nature is showing us those alternatives.
    How many is a lot?
    Will taxes alone pay for it?
    Thousands of DAC units running around the world will be required, so they would require many to build, operate and maintain. Of course it sounds like a nightmare to fund and organize, but if we do not, what kind of nightmare do we get if nothing is done? (We are getting a glimpse of that now.) And nothing being done is our current situation despite those highly touted band-aide solutions. Emissions continue to ramp up. There seems no other solution than a drastic one to face a drastic problem.

    Will taxes pay for it? It is not clear how it would be funded, but it should be clear what will happen if it is not. All the global infrastructure built around the world at sea level will become submerged in the coming years. What would the cost of that be to deal with and replace? This is not speculation. Read the U.N. report if any doubt. It is very accurate, and grim.

    Again, there seems little option. The U.N. report is not propaganda, or fake news. It is the reality the world faces based on an enormous scientific evaluation by the world's experts.

    Would love to hear about real, alternative solutions. So far, DAC is the only one that makes any sense, and offers a viable remedy.
    Last edited by Double Helix; September 19th, 2021 at 06:32 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,764
    Man of action Boris Johnson now telling the world to grow up and take action against climate change.
    Okay, but don't mention his plans for coal mines and oil fields and having protestors imprisoned.

    But the China problem will always remain. Nearly 30% of global emissions, and with only a pledge to lower them.
    They burn everything that can burn and eat everything that can be eaten. They have 1.5 billion mouths to feed.
    But Pakistan is planning to plant billions of trees.

    Relieved? I don't think so.
    Confused? Even more so.
    Conspiracy? Something is going on here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    For those folks living in the U.K., a DAC installation is being prepared in Scotland* and set to start operations in 2026.

    The cost of these things have to come down to make this work, but there seems no other alternative because the emissions are not going down. They are going up. And there is no end in sight. There is only talk about reducing them.

    Does it seem unlikely that this tech will save the planet? Yes, because of the almighty profit issue.

    Is there an alternative? Not at all likely.

    What will happen if we do not employ DAC to reduce CO2?

    Nobody really wants to know the answer........


    "Climate change: Large-scale CO2 removal facility set for Scotland"

    * https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57588248
    Last edited by Double Helix; September 24th, 2021 at 06:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,764
    How many DAC plants are needed to solve the problem?

    What about methane?
    There are some crazy ideas.
    http://marineagronomy.org/sites/defa...ow%20burps.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    How many DAC plants are needed to solve the problem?

    What about methane?
    There are some crazy ideas.
    http://marineagronomy.org/sites/defa...ow%20burps.pdf

    The number of DAC installations will depend on how efficient they can be made. This is a developing technology that will need a lot of R&D to optimize. But they will be required in large numbers since emissions will continue to rise from all the gas and coal-fired power plants, and hydrocarbon powered cars, planes, ships, homes, etc. Nasty hydrocarbon sources are not going away any time soon, at least not in the developing world which cannot or will not pay for more advanced power sources.

    This is all the more reason to scale up hydrogen power and solar panels ASAP. Combining DAC with a mass move to hydrogen and solar is likely the only meaningful approach, with wind providing some help.

    Methane converts to CO2 from hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere*. It is a slow process. Removing the CO2 is much more significant than methane as CO2 accounts for about 75% of global warming due to its extreme abundance. Deep cuts in global warming from CO2 removal will significantly decrease methane emissions from natural sources.

    But there is a severe constraint on this process. We don't have much time to solve the problem, assuming it is not already too late.


    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosp...pheric_methane
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 15th, 2013, 01:36 AM
  2. Replies: 204
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2012, 12:16 AM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 9th, 2012, 06:54 PM
  4. Runaway Greenhouse Effect
    By Monkey.Man in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 4th, 2010, 02:06 AM
  5. Replies: 40
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2010, 11:15 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •