Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
lost_shaman

NOAA busted re-writing temperature History.

476 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

lost_shaman

Again, like clockwork now, NOAA has been caught red handed manipulating actual Temperature data to show older data as Colder and contemporary data as Hotter for no reason other than the Ideology of current Administrators.

 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/20/noaa-caught-cooking-the-books-again-this-time-by-erasing-a-record-cold-snap/

To be honest, this actually makes me MAD! People like me who live in the U.S. actually pay taxes that fund NOAA and in return we expect good Science. But instead we seem to be funding certain political and fudged numbers that represent a false temperature history. This isn't a problem just for the U.S. as almost everyone on Earth uses NOAA data.

Let me quote some of the more interesting statements.

Quote

We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.

 

Quote

 

On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were 2.7F less than in 1943. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only 0.9F.

Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures down, relatively, by 1.8F.

 

 

Quote

 

Yet again, he has found that NOAA’s arbitrary adjustments tell a lie. They claim that January 2018 was warmer in the New York region than January 1943, when the raw data from local stations tells us this just isn’t true.

So at the three sites of Ithaca, Auburn and Geneva, we find that January 2018 was colder than January 1943 by 1.0, 1.7 and 1.3F respectively.

Yet NOAA say that the division was 2.1F warmer last month. NOAA’s figure makes last month at least 3.1F warmer in comparison with 1943 than the actual station data warrants.

 

This is not right. American's should not pay taxes to fund someones FUDGED DATA. Temperature History should not be re-written just to make someones PET theory look better! That's no Science it is Propaganda! 

NOAA apologist's I guess it's your turn to "apologize"! For this bad science,... AGAIN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

If this is true AND verifiable then whoever changed this data needs to be fired, immediately and with no pension.  Those on the side of anthropomorphic climate change should be just as incensed over this because it damages the credibility of the whole movement.  If science is to reign supreme on this issue then it damned well ought to be non-politicized in this manner.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

and then,

I completely agree! I want real unadulterated data/datum and lets determine what is happening exactly. DON'T FUDGE the evidence to support your PET theory at Tax payer expense. You should go to jail for that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
49 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

and then,

I completely agree! I want real unadulterated data/datum and lets determine what is happening exactly. DON'T FUDGE the evidence to support your PET theory at Tax payer expense. You should go to jail for that!

 

Which is exactly what is being done here by Delingpole etal ;) 

Edit: btw someone also needs to explain to him that Florida isn't in New England :lol:

Edited by Essan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

And it appears that Homewood is comparing the data from some NY State stations with NOAA's average for all NY State stations .....

Edited by Essan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

Breitbart .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Well its not like this is the first time certain scientific institutions have been caught faking climate data for those who so desperately want to tax us to death, and have control over every aspect of our lives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Well its not like this is the first time certain scientific institutions have been caught faking climate data for those who so desperately want to tax us to death, and have control over every aspect of our lives.

It's certainly not the first time certain people have been caught faking climate data for those who desperately want us to buy more oil and coal ;) 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
1 hour ago, Essan said:

It's certainly not the first time certain people have been caught faking climate data for those who desperately want us to buy more oil and coal ;) 

I have a feeling I know who has more to lose, more current economic and political power and has spent more years entrenching their position.  Let me give a hint, it's not the climate scientists who's jobs will exist regardless of the outcome of the science.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
9 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

I have a feeling I know who has more to lose, more current economic and political power and has spent more years entrenching their position.  Let me give a hint, it's not the climate scientists who's jobs will exist regardless of the outcome of the science.

No it isn't the scientists. Its the people who have hired them to pretend the world is ending, all while completely ignoring very real and dangerous environmental hazards. Not that I'm one to support oil companies. I just don't see how taking more money from me makes my carbon print any better. I guess money pleases the carbon Gods

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

Why don't you post an article from a scientific journal?  A site run by a weatherman boasting onlya Bachelor's degree and not a member of any recognized professional organization (even the American Meteorological Society), is not what I would call an authority.  Get some evidence to back up your claims!

 

All I have to do is take Oklahoma City's temperature data since 1880 and note that temperatures are increasing.

Then I match it up with mean annual temperatures published by NOAA.

Then I not that they correlate extremely well.

That would not be possible if NOAA's numbers weren't based on real data.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

I decided to look up Watt's article:  It's by Delingpole, a writer for Breitbart News.

Guess what else:  he didn't cite a single source.  One would think that if he was talking about NOAA not doing it right, he would cite a few examples, a few scientific articles about how NOAA was screwing up - but NONE?

He did take a page from one of their websites that shows this past January having a pretty-much average temperature.  It's a chart of AVERAGE JANUARY temperatures and Delingpole is wondering why it doesn't show the extreme low temps.  Can the man even read?  A low of 31 degrees below the otherwise-average January temps will lower that average by only one degree - check the math.  When you average one site's temps with another ten sites, the overall average will be lowered by 0.1 degrees!  That won't even show up on an average-temp chart of even a small state.

That is a WEATHER chart, not a CLIMATE chart.  Those zigs and zags are what weather does.  The data is for the months of January only and does not purport to say anything else.  Just looking at it, I'd say that's what weather normally does.  Average annual temps bob up and down over a seven-year period, more-or-less.  We are about half-way through the upswing.  Climate is the 30-year average.  What's it doing?

The answer to that is:  nothing much.  This year (2018) the global temperature in January dropped about 0.38 degrees from two years ago.  That's just a recovery from El Nino, but it means that over the last two years, the 30-year average has dropped a little - not significantly, but a little.  That's from NOAA's own data and Breitbart News is claiming that NOAA says this January was warmer.  That's not what the chart Breitbart published says.

My conclusions:  Delingpole took a single chart, misread it and made up a story based on his own misunderstanding.  He didn't plagiarize or misquote.  What he wrote is pure fiction - all his own.

And L_S was so impressed, he linked to that article on UM.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
On 2/26/2018 at 2:10 PM, Doug1o29 said:

All I have to do is take Oklahoma City's temperature data since 1880 and note that temperatures are increasing.

Then I match it up with mean annual temperatures published by NOAA.

Then I not that they correlate extremely well.

That would not be possible if NOAA's numbers weren't based on real data.

Because Doug, you are not taking account of Land use changes over that 137 year period! You do NOT account for albedo! You do not factor in Vegetational changes which effect temperature rise. You do NOT look at any of these factors in others States that contribute to seasonal and long term effects to Oklahoma! 

So even if NOAA's Oklahoma numbers are close and "uncorrupted" by NOAA's systemic falsifications of actual temperature data, you don't actually know why the temps have risen over all that time by about a meager 1 degree F! No, you simply have decided it is because solely on the extremely small PPM rise of CO2 and only because you believe that and furthermore, you can't prove that! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Because Doug, you are not taking account of Land use changes over that 137 year period! You do NOT account for albedo! You do not factor in Vegetational changes which effect temperature rise. You do NOT look at any of these factors in others States that contribute to seasonal and long term effects to Oklahoma! 

So even if NOAA's Oklahoma numbers are close and "uncorrupted" by NOAA's systemic falsifications of actual temperature data, you don't actually know why the temps have risen over all that time by about a meager 1 degree F! No, you simply have decided it is because solely on the extremely small PPM rise of CO2 and only because you believe that and furthermore, you can't prove that! 

We're talking about TEMPERATURE changes, not land use changes.  While all those things may affect surface temps, I am not measuring them.  I am only measuring temperstures.  I am not attempting to explain anything, so I don't need those other variables.  ALL I am talking about is temps.

Just this morning, I entered the temperature data for Fort Sill for the great storm of 1886.  That storm affected pretty much everything from the Red River to Canada (and maybe south of the Red River, too) and from the Rockies to the Atlantic.  Weather is pretty-much a continental scale event.  What I am recording here is happening elsewhere, too.  When world temps go up, Oklahoma's go up; when world temps go down, Oklahoma's go down.  That's why the correlation works.  And that's how I know NOAA isn't cheating - at least with the data Delingpole posted.

That 5/9 degree figure was for the 20th century (January 1, 1901 to December 31, 2000).  If I wanted to show a higher figure, I would have chosen 1910 to 1998 and even then, it is based on mean temps in the two ending years.  A more-reliable figure would be based on a regression model, but I haven't done one of those yet.  I am still a long way from being able to do it based on Oklahoma data, but when I am done with this current project, I should be able to partition temperature rise into "natural" and "man-made" components.

 

I seem to remember you ranting on another thread about not sticking to the topic of the thread.  So how about it?  The topic of this thread is Breitbart News' lack of data in preparing its phony article.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
On 2/21/2018 at 1:20 AM, toast said:

Breitbart .....

Yeah, I'm not likely buying it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We're talking about TEMPERATURE changes, not land use changes. 

So Doug gets to pick and choose what changes "TEMPERATURE"? 

 

16 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

While all those things may affect surface temps, I am not measuring them.  I am only measuring temperstures.  I am not attempting to explain anything, so I don't need those other variables.  ALL I am talking about is temps.

No. really that is not what you are doing Doug! You have always attributed all warming and other weather to CO2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
18 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We're talking about TEMPERATURE changes

Doug

Britain has just experienced its coldest March day since records began.

According to the BBC, many municipal authorities believed the climate change narrative - including quotes such as "Children will never see snow" - and reduced their number of snow plows and road gritting vehicles. Consequently, large areas of the country came to a standstill, and thousands of people were stranded in their vehicles in arctic conditions.

Apparently, one municipal authority spent their saved money on public water fountains to prevent people becoming dehydrated in the sweltering weather the UK will experience ...

But of course, we are talking about weather and not climate ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

So Doug gets to pick and choose what changes "TEMPERATURE"? 

 

No. really that is not what you are doing Doug! You have always attributed all warming and other weather to CO2. 

All any climate scientist can do is look for correlations between other variables and temperatures.  If he can detect one, then he has a possible cause of warming.  But correlation does not prove cause.  If you're going to do that, you need a model (equation) that describes how the two variables might be related.

You're welcome to pick any variable you like, as long as you can show a correlation between that variable and temperature.  Correlation is a necessary first step.  So how about it?  What variables do you think need to be investiagted and do you have any correlations between those variables and temps?

ALL warming?  No.  But I note that over the last 150 years there is a correlation between global mean temps and atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa.  I note that warming is greatest in dry areas, the "global warming fingerprint."  I note that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (along with methane, water vapor, CFCs, etc.).  And apparently you still haven't figured out the difference between climate and weather.  Additional heat in the climate system = warming.  All weather does is move that heat around.  Weather is what is happening today.  Climate is a statistic that tells you in a general way what to expect of weather.

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Britain has just experienced its coldest March day since records began.

According to the BBC, many municipal authorities believed the climate change narrative - including quotes such as "Children will never see snow" - and reduced their number of snow plows and road gritting vehicles. Consequently, large areas of the country came to a standstill, and thousands of people were stranded in their vehicles in arctic conditions.

Apparently, one municipal authority spent their saved money on public water fountains to prevent people becoming dehydrated in the sweltering weather the UK will experience ...

But of course, we are talking about weather and not climate ...

Evidence that amateurs aren't very good at dealing with climate change.

As far as reduced numbers of snowplows:  around here they cry that they don't need snowplows because it hardly ever snows.  I can see the point that snowplows are expensive and even without them a city is likely to be snowbound for maybe two or three days a year.  But during those two or three days...no fire service, no ambulance service, no police.  They relie on volunteers with four-wheel drive pickups to get people in desperate need of medical help to the hospital.

Your examples illustrate that a little knowledge can be dangerous.  I suggest your city officials talk to people who know what's going on, not just make up their minds from what they read on the Internet.  Also, most of those claims sound like something you'd find on You Tube or Breitbart News - or Anthony Watts.

Climate is based on 30-year averages.  Determined over 30-year periods, average temps are rising, but extreme temps are not.  If your city officials knew that, they'd know they have to deal with more warm days, but the same number of extremely cold and extremely hot days.  They'd know that the greatest snowfalls occur at temperatures near the freezing point, so they'd know to expect more snow, not less.  Your public policy folks need professional help.

 

About your extreme weather:  the US has been experiencing extreme winters for about ten years now.  Particularly the northeastern and Great Lakes states.  This has been blamed on the Polar Vortex having relocated over Greenland, forcing storms to move south to get around it.  But this year, instead of locating over Greenland, the Polar Vortex has located itself farther east, bringing the cold weather to Europe.  The case for the Polar Vortex relocation being due to global warming is getting stronger year-by-year.  That could be your problem:  your cold weather is brought to you by global warming.

So what is causing the Polar Vortex to relocate?  The jury is still out.  But the surface waters in the North Pacific are warmer than usual.  That would be the first step in the opening of a new evaporation basin there.  If that is what is happening, warm water will start flowing northward on the surface, imparting its heat to the air, which forces the Polar Vortex to move away from it.  A new evaporation basin in the North Pacific would be all the proof of climate change anybody needs.

Admittedly, this is still speculation, but the evidence keeps getting stronger.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Your examples illustrate that a little knowledge can be dangerous.  I suggest your city officials talk to people who know what's going on, not just make up their minds from what they read on the Internet.

Your public policy folks need professional help.

Doug

Yes, a little knowledge can be dangerous - like the climate change scientist (I forget his name) who said children in Britain would never experience snow.

The decisions regarding snowplows etc. were made after discussions with climate change scientists. You may remember that after a severe drought in France some years ago, the EU set up a commission. As a consequence, governments and municipal authorities were advised to plan for droughts and floods being an increasing problem in Europe. The flip-side is that cold weather would occur less frequently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21357520

Edit: It was David Viner of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University who said "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". Is he enough of a "professional" for you?

Edited by Derek Willis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
34 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Yes, a little knowledge can be dangerous - like the climate change scientist (I forget his name) who said children in Britain would never experience snow.

The decisions regarding snowplows etc. were made after discussions with climate change scientists. You may remember that after a severe drought in France some years ago, the EU set up a commission. As a consequence, governments and municipal authorities were advised to plan for droughts and floods being an increasing problem in Europe. The flip-side is that cold weather would occur less frequently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21357520

Edit: It was David Viner of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University who said "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". Is he enough of a "professional" for you?

Some of those statements make no sense to me either.  They all sound like amateur mistakes.  Beddington said that the variability was increasing.  That means more extreme events.  Did somebody misunderstand what he said?  Evidently, snowfall in England is an extreme condition:  that would mean more snow events, more floods, more droughts.  That's what the article said.  But that should mean only a few more and you won't be able to tell differences in intensity of these storms from those of previous storms.

I'm finding in this area that people have no idea of the variability of past weather events.  I heard all sorts of newspaper statements about the flood of 2007 on the Deep Fork being a "1000-year flood."  When I actually ran the calculations, it was a 50-year flood and the 1921 flood was worse - but nobody remembers that one.  The Wichita Eagle reported the storm of 1886 as having temperatures of 42 degrees below zero.  The weather station actually recorded five below.  The Hopskinsville Gazette reported four temps for the same storm - two of 40 below and two of 100 below.  If you believe that last one, I want to talk to you about some beach-front land I own in Omaha...  So be real careful where you get your weather/climate data.

 

Much of that article is garbled - what have badgers got to do with the issue?  It's like somebody's computer assembled two different, unrelated articles.  Did you read it?

I'd like to see the original papers where these scientists reported what would happen.  Something has been garbled, misquoted or misunderstood.

 

Past climate shifts have been preceded by "flickering" of weather patterns as the climate system shifts to a new regime for a few years, then back to the old one, then to the new one, etc.  That increases variability.  And we're seeing increasing variability, apparently generated by the Polar Vortex having relocated.  One would expect a few "normal" years as part of that "flicker," but the Polar Vortex is now two years past due for a return to "normal."  Don't know what's going on.

 

I found Viner's name on a paper I'm citing for an upcoming paper:

Morin, X., M. Lechowicz, C. Auspurger, J. O’Keefe, D. Viner and I. Chuine.  2008.  Leaf phenology in 22 North American tree species during the 21st century.  Global Change Biology, 15(4):961-975.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01735.x/full 6 February 2018.

How he got into North American phenology is beyond me.

 

At any rate, it's lunch time.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Some of those statements make no sense to me either.

Beddington was the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK government. The article on the BBC website was a summation of a statement he made to mark the end of his tenure. Hence the subjects were mixed - climate change, badgers ...

My point was that it was people like Beddington and Vinner who were consulted on how countries in the EU should respond to climate change. Their recommendations were passed down to government departments and municipal authorities.

You have to remember, we are constantly told the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that climate change is real. So, when people like Beddington and Vinner make statements, government departments and local authorities believe what they say - perhaps they don't believe what they say, but they have to act on what they say. Heavy snowfall in the UK was said to be increasingly unlikely, and so the number of snowplows was reduced.

The problem is, people have lived in fear of the climate change bullies. If they had maintained the number of snowplows, taxpayers would say, "Don't you know it isn't going to snow again? So why are you wasting money maintaining snowplows? Sell them to Iceland, and start installing fountains so people don't die of thirst.

Fortunately, the times they are a-changing. People are taking less notice of the dire warnings of boiling oceans and drought in the UK. It was all a political project in any case - a means of facilitating globalism and imposing "green" taxes.

At any rate, it's time I went outside and broke the ice on the fish pond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

I would like to see the original articles.  It sounds to me as if there is a misunderstanding, if not a deliberate misquote.  One might ask which of those ministers wanted a fountain instead of a snowplow.

There seems to be a great deal of BS about climate coming from Great Britain - from both sides of the issue.  Politicians want to use "carbon taxes" without understanding how they are supposed to work.  Governments won't derive revenue from a properly-run program, but politicians tack the term "carbon tax" onto any otherwise-unsupportable tax they can think of.  That's somewhere between greed and ignorance (A true carbon tax would be redistributed to the population on a per capita basis' if you're going to use the market economy to reduce pollution, then people have to have money with which to cast their "dollar votes.").

Climate change is real and I'm beginning to think what we have called "wild weather" is part of it. And that would include your current freezing winter.  For that matter, I can measure climate change in Oklahoma over the last 300 or so years.  Whenever the 30-year average passes out of the previous 95% confidence limits, the climate has proveably changed.  Yes, the records I'm using have some problems in the early nineteenth century, but mostly they're accurate.  The problems consist mostly of incompatible technologies (like trying to estimate daily mean temp from three fixed-time non-random readings per day.).  Anyway, I hope to publish on this eventually.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

Fortunately, the times they are a-changing. People are taking less notice of the dire warnings of boiling oceans and drought in the UK. It was all a political project in any case -

Al Gore certainly didn't do anybody any favors by turning this into a political issue.  But on this side of the Atlantic things seem to be turning around.  The House will most-likely turn blue this fall and maybe the Senate, too.  That would nearly paralyze Trump and his anti-science, anti-everything policies.

People are getting tired of his hateful rhetoric and support of the gun lobby.  The NRA is a terrorist organization.  It's effort to get a gun into the hands of every criminally insane maniac has been on-going for decades, bringing it under the rackets laws - an on-going criminal enterprise aiding and abetting the murder of school children.  And the kids are getting tired of it, even if the NRA isn't.  We need to make our laws conform to the intent of the Second Amendment or abolish it.  As it is now, it's not working.

At least, the tree ring records are safely backed up.  We now have copies of the US database at the University of Arizona, in Canada and in Europe and I don't know where all else.  Trump can't order those destroyed and expect it will happen.  I don't know about the weather records, but considering the risk, I'd guess they're already in safe storage.  And then, there are partial copies on computers all over the world.  If nothing else, we could rebuild them.  We needed to back them up anyway, so in a way, Trump's threat produced a good result.

The US is converting to wind whether Trump likes it or not.  We will have more-than- doubled our wind-generating capacity by the time he is scheduled to leave office - if he lasts that long.

Doug

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
13 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Al Gore certainly didn't do anybody any favors by turning this into a political issue.  But on this side of the Atlantic things seem to be turning around.  The House will most-likely turn blue this fall and maybe the Senate, too.  That would nearly paralyze Trump and his anti-science, anti-everything policies.

People are getting tired of his hateful rhetoric and support of the gun lobby.  The NRA is a terrorist organization.  It's effort to get a gun into the hands of every criminally insane maniac has been on-going for decades, bringing it under the rackets laws - an on-going criminal enterprise aiding and abetting the murder of school children.  And the kids are getting tired of it, even if the NRA isn't.  We need to make our laws conform to the intent of the Second Amendment or abolish it.  As it is now, it's not working.

At least, the tree ring records are safely backed up.  We now have copies of the US database at the University of Arizona, in Canada and in Europe and I don't know where all else.  Trump can't order those destroyed and expect it will happen.  I don't know about the weather records, but considering the risk, I'd guess they're already in safe storage.  And then, there are partial copies on computers all over the world.  If nothing else, we could rebuild them.  We needed to back them up anyway, so in a way, Trump's threat produced a good result.

The US is converting to wind whether Trump likes it or not.  We will have more-than- doubled our wind-generating capacity by the time he is scheduled to leave office - if he lasts that long.

Doug

As I have said in previous posts, I am all for reducing and then ending the use of fossil fuels - they are polluting, they are going to run out at some point, and they may be having an effect on the climate. I am all for increasing the effort on nuclear fusion, which if we are going to think about humanity being around for at least a few more thousand years, that is the only long-term solution.

I don't know much about the gun situation, other than the tragic mass shootings we see on T.V. As far as I understand, members of the public in the UK have never had the right to bear arms except under special conditions: farmers etc. After the First World War a lot of guns came to the UK with returning soldiers, so a law banning them was passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.