Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Global Warming Guru from Wisconsin..........
Old 12-17-2007, 03:24 PM   #1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Global Warming Guru from Wisconsin..........

He has an interesting take, it was written 2 years ago, he is now 87. It was printed in the local electric utlity's newspaper..........

The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions
Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.
Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.
How Little We Know
Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.
“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.
“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.
We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”
Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.
Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”
We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.
“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
What Leads, What Follows?
What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.
We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:
Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”
Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.
Renaissance Man, Marathon Man
When others were laughing at the concept, Reid Bryson was laying the ground floor for scientific investigation of human impacts on climate. We asked UW Professor Ed Hopkins, the assistant state climatologist, about the significance of Bryson’s work in advancing the science he’s now practiced for six decades.
“His contributions are manifold,” Hopkins said. “He wrote Climates of Hunger back in the 1970s looking at how climate changes over the last several thousand years have affected human activity and human cultures.”
This, he suggests, is traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,” Hopkins says. “He’s one of those people I would say is a Renaissance person.”
The Renaissance, of course, produced its share of heretics, and 21 years after he supposedly retired, one could ponder whether Bryson’s work today is a tale of continuing heresy, or of conventional wisdom being outpaced by an octogenarian.
Without addressing—or being asked—that question, UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”
“In his lifetime, in his career, he has shaped the future as well as the present state of climatology,” Moran says, adding, “We’re going to see his legacy with us for many generations to come.”
Holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Boston College, Moran became a doctoral candidate under Bryson in the late 1960s and early ’70s. “I came to Wisconsin because he was there,” Moran told us.
With Hopkins, Moran co-authored Wisconsin’s Weather and Climate, a book aimed at teachers, students, outdoor enthusiasts, and workers with a need to understand what the weather does and why. Bryson wrote a preface for the book but Hopkins told us the editors “couldn’t fathom” certain comments, thinking he was being too flippant with the remark that “Wisconsin is not for wimps when it comes to weather.”
Clearly what those editors couldn’t fathom was that Bryson simply enjoys mulling over the reasons weather and climate behave as they do and what might make them—and consequently us—behave differently. This was immediately obvious when we asked him why, at his age, he keeps showing up for work at a job he’s no longer paid to do.
“It’s fun!” he said. Ed Hopkins and Joe Moran would undoubtedly agree.
“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”—Dave Hoopman
__________________

__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 12-17-2007, 06:47 PM   #2
Full time employment: Posting here.
UncleHoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus
Posts: 769
An interesting read, maybe we're not doomed after all.
__________________

__________________
UncleHoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 09:22 PM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
maddythebeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,450
Thanks for the article....another Badger...
__________________
maddythebeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 09:38 PM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Thanks for the article. I don't think he will be believed - He will be looked as a crazy old man.
A confession - I don't really believe global warming is due to human activity and if it is; humanity will not do much to stop it.

To me the global warming issue is like modern art. No one is willing to say it is ugly so people try to expain why it is so good.
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 10:10 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
maddythebeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,450
And yet another theory on climate change is global dimming from man increasing particulate air pollution....NOVA | Dimming the Sun | PBS

Although, the science on this looks to be pretty sound with years of water evaporation records to compare...
__________________
maddythebeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 10:12 PM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vaporů
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
Yes, but I think we need to go ask Al Gore to explain to us what he *really* meant when he said that .

I need to search a bit more, but I read today that the IPCC has not agreed to a model for water vapor (the most significant greenhouse gas), and therefore exclude it from their models! More googling to do.

- ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 10:51 PM   #7
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 197
Handing over to my husband...

Quote:
I read today that the IPCC has not agreed to a model for water vapor (the most significant greenhouse gas), and therefore exclude it from their models!
If the models omitted water vapor they would not come close to matching past climate changes. They match them to within any uncertainties on the climate data itself.

Water vapor does not stay in the atmosphere for very long, unlike greenhouse gases. So you can evaporate as much water vapor as you like until the air is saturated and it will just come back down again within a few hours.

The only issue about water vapor seems to be how much of a secondary effect does the warming from the greenhouse gases have in adding more water vapor to the atmosphere. The water vapor IR absorption bands are pretty much saturated so adding more makes little difference.

One interesting fact often ignored in such debates over the relative importance of water vapor and greenhouse gases is that if you removed all the water vapor from the atmosphere, the global temperatures would not fall much (a degree or two) as CO2 has strong absorption bands at similar wavelengths to water, so much of the IR radiation could not escape anyway.
__________________
Cantuar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 10:52 PM   #8
Full time employment: Posting here.
UncleHoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus
Posts: 769
Clouds and cosmic rays maybe.

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming - Telegraph
__________________
UncleHoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 09:35 AM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
Thanks for the article. I don't think he will be believed - He will be looked as a crazy old man.
A confession - I don't really believe global warming is due to human activity and if it is; humanity will not do much to stop it.

To me the global warming issue is like modern art. No one is willing to say it is ugly so people try to expain why it is so good.
That "crazy old man" was the same guy who said in 1968 that he believed man DID contribute to global warming. Now,4 decades later and a LOT of research, he doesn't sound so sure.........and those fickle supporters of his are now Al Gore apologists.........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 09:44 AM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantuar View Post
Handing over to my husband...

One interesting fact often ignored in such debates over the relative importance of water vapor and greenhouse gases ...
Cantaur team - do you have any good links for this info? I've read a bit and am pretty confused about the water vapor contribution. I don't trust the info that I found, I just reported it here for discussion. Just trying to learn more.

Thanks - ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 10:15 AM   #11
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 197
I'll ask him when he gets home this evening. He may be retired, but he seems to still be spending a fair bit of time at the office.
__________________
Cantuar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 11:30 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantuar View Post
One interesting fact often ignored in such debates over the relative importance of water vapor and greenhouse gases is that if you removed all the water vapor from the atmosphere, the global temperatures would not fall much (a degree or two) as CO2 has strong absorption bands at similar wavelengths to water, so much of the IR radiation could not escape anyway.
I find this interesting since water vapor and clouds are responsible for between 66 and 85% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 is only responsible for between 9 and 26%. So even if we were able to take out all of the water from the atmosphere we would see a drop of a degree or two. If we took out all of the CO2 we would see a drop of less than .5 degrees. Since the temperature has only risen roughly .5 degrees, I have a very hard time seeing where humans have caused a significant change in the global temperature from emitting CO2.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 01:41 PM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
I find this interesting since water vapor and clouds are responsible for between 66 and 85% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 is only responsible for between 9 and 26%.
This is what I am trying to understand. The inference from the article I read, was that the IPCC chose to ignore water vapor, because it can't be changed by man. But, that does not mean that it doesn't have an effect! And that effect would seem to swamp out that by CO2 increases (which is what is stated in the OP).

Now, that article I read referred to a 1995 publication by the IPCC, so this may have changed, and maybe the article I read was totally bogus. I am skeptical on both sides of this. So I am interested in digging deeper.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 01:46 PM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Untii I see startling info refuting the "old codger"'s research, I'll go with Reid Bryson.

Keep in mind many of those "experts" are competing for govt grants to keep their jobs. And, I think politics are in force as to if you get the money or not.

Reid Bryson doesn't need grants these days........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 01:53 PM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
good point, but sometimes the motivation is just ego. But I'm listening. - ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 02:05 PM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Where's all the "sky is falling" folks from the Al Gore thread? I posted it just for them to refute........

Oh well, there's time..........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 02:29 PM   #17
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
Untii I see startling info refuting the "old codger"'s research, I'll go with Reid Bryson.

Keep in mind many of those "experts" are competing for govt grants to keep their jobs. And, I think politics are in force as to if you get the money or not.

Reid Bryson doesn't need grants these days........
I really object to this sort of accusation of fraud. Because that's basically what it is - it's saying that you can't trust what these scientists tell you because they'll lie through their teeth in order to get money and keep their jobs. We get this from creationists all the time too. In this particular case, when some of these scientists you're so happily accusing of criminal behaviour are friends and acquaintances of ours (to say nothing of the fact that Mr Dr Cantuar happens to be one of them), it makes it that much more annoying.

The current administration would be very happy, I'm sure, for scientists to find that global warming is wholly natural and/or that it's basically beneficial (I'm sure they'd be even happier for scientists to find that it doesn't exist, but I think even George Bush and Mike Griffin have abandoned that one by now). So nobody in the USA is going to find it easier to get research money if the research is showing that global warming is basically anthropogenic and also liable to be harmful. But I suppose it's as good an excuse as any other for dismissing what you don't want to hear.
__________________
Cantuar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 03:23 PM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
I find this interesting since water vapor and clouds are responsible for between 66 and 85% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 is only responsible for between 9 and 26%. So even if we were able to take out all of the water from the atmosphere we would see a drop of a degree or two. If we took out all of the CO2 we would see a drop of less than .5 degrees. Since the temperature has only risen roughly .5 degrees, I have a very hard time seeing where humans have caused a significant change in the global temperature from emitting CO2.
Didn't JG used to quote himself? I started thinking about this a little more. If the total amount of CO2 increase, as reported by NOAA, is entirely attributable to human causes then the actual effect from carbon use would be in the neighborhood of .075 degrees. I don't really want to rack my brain enough to figure out the overlap because of the increase in water vapor due to the warmer air, but I would guess it would still be less than .15 degrees attributable to human CO2 emissions.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 03:45 PM   #19
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantuar View Post
I really object to this sort of accusation of fraud. Because that's basically what it is - it's saying that you can't trust what these scientists tell you because they'll lie through their teeth in order to get money and keep their jobs. We get this from creationists all the time too. In this particular case, when some of these scientists you're so happily accusing of criminal behaviour are friends and acquaintances of ours (to say nothing of the fact that Mr Dr Cantuar happens to be one of them), it makes it that much more annoying.
Sorry, you misunderstood me.......What I was saying is NOT that scientists will LIE to get grants,what I WAS saying is that Al Gore and others found the scientists that are adamant about there being a link rather than guys like Reid Bryson who are not sure.

While I am not a research scientist, my late sister was. She wrote some 20 grants a year to keep her lab funded. We had many discussions about it, and she was adamant that politics was involved,whether from the university, govt, or outside private industry. So I am not speaking without any knowledge at all, nor am I accusing anyone of being a fraud, liar, or cheat.

I do think that the folks who agree we face a planetary calamity will get MORE funding than those who are not sure.........based on the current political climate........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 03:48 PM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantuar View Post
I really object to this sort of accusation of fraud. Because that's basically what it is - it's saying that you can't trust what these scientists tell you because they'll lie through their teeth in order to get money and keep their jobs.
I am skeptical of information, no matter the source. I think it is prudent to do so. Don't be offended. Some people have ulterior motives, and you can't always tell ahead of time. So I don't 'trust' anyone.

What I try to do is look at the data, and the methodology and see if it appears to be presented w/o bias. I'm surprised how easy that is to do many times. I think many try to get away with it in the media, because the average person does not have very good critical skills. Much of what I see in the media is garbage.

Now, back in the Gore thread, I took the stance of accepting the IPCC statements, so we could evaluate whether Al Gore did a reasonable job of presenting that info, or did he 'spin' it excessively.

But, outside of that thread, I am interested in taking a skeptical view of the IPCC. I mean, it is a governmental group, I pretty much expect some members have an agenda. I still think it is the best we have, but I'm willing to listen to other views. I'm skeptical that the person in the OP has an agenda also, or maybe is just wrong - but he says some things that I think are worth following up on.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Warming on 20/20 lets-retire Other topics 17 10-22-2007 10:58 AM
Global Warming Poll TromboneAl Other topics 113 08-05-2007 01:31 PM
Global warming wipeout REWahoo Other topics 22 04-25-2007 04:13 PM
Global warming and financial positioning janeeyre FIRE and Money 274 04-18-2007 04:25 PM
A New Global Warming Strategy marty Other topics 3 02-13-2007 08:54 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.