• Home
  • Current News
  • Almost As Many Greenhouse Gas Theories as Clueless Climate Scientists

Almost As Many Greenhouse Gas Theories as Clueless Climate Scientists

Written by

One simple statistic is perhaps the sorriest indictment of the credibility of government climate ‘science.’ Did you know that the number of official greenhouse gas theories almost matches the number of government climatologists spouting them?puzzled

We were told “lower your carbon footprint!” We had to cut our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, pay more taxes or face “tipping points” of “runaway” human-caused environmental disasters.

All because of a hypothesis about an invisible “heat trapping” blanket of CO2 that was going to fry us with higher global temperatures. But this century Nature hasn’t cooperated with the climate “experts.” If anything – quite the reverse has been happening –  despite massive increases in human emissions of CO2 global cooling now seems a real threat.

Where it all went Horribly Wrong

So, we all know the basics of the global warming “theory.” We are told industrial emissions of burnt hydrocarbons are adding “man-made” CO2 to the atmosphere creating a potent chemical cocktail that dangerously “traps” more heat energy making our planet warmer. In a nutshell that’s the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHE) in play.

After 30 years of these ‘Chicken Little’ alarmist scare stories independent scientists, specialists in a myriad of related disciplines, are speaking out about what they see is junk science. The “experts” – those generalists that dominate the undeniably infant field of research that is climate science – are finally being called to account. Climate realists are increasingly telling the alarmists to stop computer-modeling Earth as if it were a greenhouse! The reason is two-fold: first, it is obvious to experts from the “hard” sciences that Earth’s atmosphere does not act in any way like a greenhouse. Second, and more embarrassing for the “experts,” despite a huge increase in human CO2 emissions over recent decades our planet stubbornly refuses to get any warmer. In short, the real world shows no proof of any CO2-driven GHE whatsoever.

Earth ‘Laboratory’ Proves No Greenhouse Gas Warming

For years now the scientifically illiterate mainstream media has been hyping government-sponsored man-made global warming alarm. Government-paid climate researchers were not subjected to the old-fashioned rigors of journalistic scrutiny. Instead, skeptics were ostracized and open debate eschewed because the science was somehow deemed “settled” and doomsayers of the cult wallowed in almost god-like eminence. Nowhere did we see investigative journalists probing the glaringly obvious fact that in the broader scientific community climatology is regarded as an infant field of study. As such, it is a field in which few, if any, aspiring first rate talented physicists, mathematicians, etc. would ordinarily choose as a career path.

Now let’s rewind to the 1980’s. Back then there were no university climatology faculties or academically qualified and trained climate scientists per se. But as climate change became a political hot issue a rag-tag array of third rate self-described experts – who invariably had little if any training in thermodynamics – came to the fore.

We can see climate scientists are certainly not particularly numerate. In the last 30 years we know that CO2 emissions have grown from 19,000 Million metric tonnes in 1981 to 33,000 million metric tonnes today (2010 figure).

That’s a whopping 74 percent increase in CO2 emissions. Yet despite all that extra CO2 floating above us global temperatures have flat lined since 1998.

Indeed, even the “best” among them, NASA’s (now retired) greenhouse gas guru James Hansen, who spawned the carbon climate craze in 1981, dodges the issue that the CO2 climate numbers don’t correlate with global temperatures. No correlation = no causation. Thus discrediting the crux of the “theory” that CO2 controls climate.

With such a backdrop of non-disaster and a failed “theory” no wonder the global warming crowd are in full retreat.  So, exactly how many actual climate scientists still stand toe-to-toe with NASA’s now ousted climate front man? A survey by the University of Illinois shows us that Hansen’s ‘consensus’ – those experts who state they believe in man-made greenhouse gas warming – is a mere 75 researchers from the 2,500 scientists associated with the IPCC. [1.] 

With those numbers we can fairly describe Hansen and his doomsaying ilk as an endangered species.

NASA Apollo Expert blasts former NASA Colleague

At the fore of highly-qualified independent experts debunking the greenhouse gas charade is Texan Dr. Pierre Latour. Latour is carving a reputation as Hansen’s nemesis since he joined the unpaid ranks of independent analysts at Principia Scientific International, where he is now Vice Chairman.

Dr. Latour built a stellar career in industry first making his name as Chemical Engineer on NASA’s Apollo space mission. He and other experts in thermodynamics have this to say to Hansen:

 “Chemical engineers design and operate radiant, convection and conduction furnaces, kilns, forges, chemical reactors and boilers for refining petroleum, manufacturing chemicals and generating electricity since 1920. Not once have we seen any GHE.”

Latour and his ‘Slayer’ colleagues at PSI say the time has come to eradicate the word ‘greenhouse’ and all connotations associated with it from any description of the mechanisms describing atmospheric physics.

No Peer-reviewed Science to Prove Greenhouse ‘Blanket Effect’

The Slayers say if you scratch the surface of the well-funded climate science veneer you’ll find that there is also not a single peer-reviewed paper that scientifically substantiates the existence of so-called “back radiation heating,” the key to the GHE. This alleged re-radiating heat mechanism that turns a trace amount of CO2 in the air into a deadly super heating climate “blanket.” But the term “back radiation heating” is strangely absent from any industry thermodynamics textbooks. Frankly, this self-heating blanket notion known only within the realms of academia bears the dodgy hallmarks of a perpetual motion machine that applied scientists and engineers long ago proved was impossible in real world physics.

Indeed, the very idea that energy from solar radiation can be “trapped” by carbon dioxide (CO2) to form a gaseous atmospheric “blanket effect” in the atmosphere was famously refuted in 2011 by Professor Nasif Nahle. [2]

But as Mexico’s Professor Nahle has experimentally demonstrated “the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the greenhouse, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings…”

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

Canadian space scientists Joseph E. Postma and Nahle rigorously applied the science from the groundbreaking book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’  Applying the ‘Slayer’ science they elucidated the key flaw in GHE equations – a “trick” in the calculations that on the surface may appear a workable shortcut, but to trained thermodynamics experts, proved to be a fatal error.

The over simplification was to model earth as if it were a flat disk rather than a sphere. Thereby reliance is dubiously placed on a plane-parallel model whereby the ground and atmosphere are treated as “planes” that are “parallel” to each other (i.e. a flat earth model). The incoming solar flux number is thereby crassly fudged by dividing by a factor of “4” (this is the numeral “4” you see in so many GHE diagrams) so as to average the Solar energy over the entire globe. Taking the average seems ok to non-experts, but to those in the “hard” sciences it was the critical error that made the numbers meaninglessness in complex thermodynamics terms.

Technically what climate science had done wrong was they equated the energy flux density of the incoming power, to that of the outgoing power (not a requirement of the Law of Conservation of Energy (LCE)).

Twilight Coldness: the Flat Earth of Crumbling Greenhouse Gas Science

Thus the fudged, flat earth numbers fed into the standard model effectively treat the Earth as having sunlight coming in over all parts of the Earth at once, with no day-time and no night-time, and with one-quarter the value of the incoming energy flux density of the actual solar power to account for this, which makes it equal to the average terrestrial output power.

But, as we said at the top of this article, this infant field of science couldn’t establish agreement about the details of the fudge. So they devised 63 competing official climate models that are mutually contradictory in their details (but good enough for “government work”).  As such, they offer 63 different ways to be wrong and each displaying a model “average” solar input power of 240 J/s/m2 that provides an equivalent temperature of about  –18 degrees Celsius (255K or -0.4F). In other words, these geniuses have their start point an “earth” that is a freezing flat disk without any possibility to allow liquid water!

A Better Model: Allow Day and Night on a Rotating Planet

Astrophysicist, Joe Postma – in his momentous paper ‘The Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect’ – goes on to prove that by treating Earth as a sphere so that night and day exist we can suddenly explain with standard physics how daytime gives us the +30 degrees C worth of “added” GHE temperature; on average over half of the Earth (reaching a theoretical maximum of up to +121 degrees C under the solar-noon if it was not for the cooling power of the atmosphere).

To sum up then, the government fed world of third rate climate science spawned 63 self-contradictory and idiosyncratic two-dimensional models that are (excuse the pun) roundly debunked by “hard” scientists. Climate science made a monumental error by addressing Earth as a (non-existent) flat, cold twilight planet, the way Hansen preferred. But when  our planet is more correctly treated as a three-dimensional spherical mode – with the entire incoming solar energy impacting just one hemisphere alone – the climate numbers add up without the contrivance of any ‘greenhouse gas’ effect.

Therefore, there is no risk whatsoever posed to our climate by human emissions of CO2 because the “theory” those claims are made upon is shown to be junk science.

—————————-

[1.] P.T. Doran & M. Kendall Zimmerman, Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, EOS, Volume 90, Number 3.  January 20, 2009.

http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf

[2] Nahle. N.S. ‘Experiment on the Cause of Real Greenhouses’ Effect – Repeatability of Prof. Robert W. Wood’s experiment,’ University Professor, Scientist, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet© Monterrey, N. L., Mexico

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (21)

  • Avatar

    Judy Ryan

    |

    I actually think its A WELL l written paper that a person like me, with no hard science background, can understand. I refer people to the Woods and Nahle studies. What we need are methods of easily replicating those studies. By the way, are you guys going to join the POSTER CAMPAIGN. Try designing a poster that shows that CO2 acts as a coolant in the outer atmosphere. Call it the Umbrella effect. And let go of any dispute re the lower atmosphere. It’s counter productive., Aas it legitimises the pseudo science.. And while you debate it the scam continues.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”will you stop thread bombing and wait for replies?”[/i]

    What I am waiting for is any attempt to prove wrong what I am saying about the gravito-thermal effect an dthe state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    If PSI members, Roy Spencer et al were genuine in seeking the truth, rather than just saving face, then I’d be more than happy to enter into an appropriate scientific discussion, from which they would learn much if they were willing so to do.

    [b]Administrator note:[/b]

    [b]Your debate style is pathetic and over the top. You have been banned all over the place because you lack tact and civil behavior as you act like you are Mr. Know it all.

    You are banned once again.[/b]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Sunsettommy”]Doug,

    will you stop thread bombing and wait for replies?

    It gets tedious when you fill up threads with a second person conversation with yourself.[/quote]

    From several climate blogs

    angech | April 26, 2014 at 9:02 am Judith Curry

    “DC get off my thread, please.”

    Roy Spencer says:April 25, 2014 at6:10 PM

    “OMG! Welcome back, D O U G! What a wide variety of similar names you go by!”

    He is known everywhere as “the attack of the smelly cotton socks”! Sometimes crushing ridicule redicule of his every sensless word, gets him to go away for a while.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    I am taking a course on climate change and one of the first questions I had was what using a circle instead of a sphere did to the actual energy calculations. I am waiting for the course to complete to see if any of the “simplicity” of the models is addressed.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    Doug,

    will you stop thread bombing and wait for replies?

    It gets tedious when you fill up threads with a second person conversation with yourself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]So, this proves my case …[/b]

    If you still think that it is solar radiation which sets the temperature of the water in that glass bowl, then repeat the experiment on another similar clear sunny day in the same week of the year and at the same time, but when (due to weather conditions) the ambient temperature is significantly different. The water still takes on the ambient temperature, even though there is very similar solar flux.

    Yes there is of course a huge amount of energy stored in the oceans and it is mixed around by currents that have a propensity to even out temperatures. But the water in the bowl is the same as a similarly shaped section of the ocean surface. The molecules in that small region of the ocean surface do not “know” anything about molecules beyond the region, any more than the molecules in the water in the bowl know about the glass in the bowl, or what is beyond. Radiation acts the same way on all these molecules in either situation, and it does next to nothing because the thin layer of water is almost completely transparent to solar radiation. And, seeing that the ocean thermocline gets colder as you go down, you can’t assume that energy is coming back up from the colder regions and warming the surface. So what is? Energy from the air transferred by conduction at the interface.

    Now, why is it so?

    Why doesn’t the air just above the ocean way out in the middle of an ocean, far from land, just keep on getting colder, along with the thermocline regions? After all, that air is fairly transparent to solar radiation also. The answer lies in an understanding of thermodynamic equilibrium and how that state (which the Second Law says will evolve) does in fact have a thermal gradient which allows energy to “creep” to warmer regions (normally at lower altitudes) and even into the surface, as must happen when the Venus surface rises in temperature.

    My hypothesis explains all observations. Nothing else does.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    What I’m saying is just so obvious in the real world. We all know that the Sun can make a black asphalt road surface far hotter than the surface of the ocean. We all know that the Sun doesn’t succeed in melting ice and snow at the top of very high mountains, even if they are near the tropics. Surely the surface layer of water transmits at least as much insolation as ice reflects. Even rocks transmit some energy below their thin surface layers on a hot sunny morning. The Earth’s surface acts nothing at all like a black or grey body which, by definition, transmits nothing. So you can’t just bung these radiation figures into Stefan-Boltzmann calculations and expect to show that radiation is doing the job. There’s no significant radiation at the base of the nominal [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere]Uranus troposphere[/url], but it’s hotter than Earth’s surface down there.

    Sorry, Joe Postma, but I’ve been telling you and John O’Sullivan about the gravito-thermal effect for nearly two years now. You need to try to understand what thermodynamic equilibrium is all about.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    (continued)

    If you want to work out how much radiation will raise a temperature you use absorptivity, not emissivity. You also deduct radiative flux that is reflected and transmitted. When considering the effect of radiation heating 70% of Earth’s surface that is a thin layer of water, Postma did not estimate what percentage of the radiation is actually absorbed in that thin layer. Instead he effectively calculated its temperature as if 100% of the radiation stopped and heated that thin layer. When you consider the number of molecules, maybe even just 1 millimetre would be enough to set the surface temperature, so his calculations (and the IPCC’s) are way out.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Postma[/b] is wrong in assuming solar radiation can heat the Earth’s surface to that extent, especially when 70% of the surface is a thin (say 1 centimetre deep) surface layer of water which transmits most of the radiation down into the ocean thermoclines. The average temperature of the ocean is down around 4C, so there’s a general propensity for heat to transfer downwards in the water.

    Suspend a shallow glass bowl (using thin wire or string) above the ground but in the sunshine. Pour a small amount of very cold water (say at 2C – well below ambient temperature) into the bowl.
    [b]
    Question:[/b] Will the Sun at noon make the water hotter than the air, cooler or the same temperature?

    [b]Answer:[/b] None of the above. Conduction makes the water the same temperature as the air. So too does the surface layer of water reach about the same temperature as the gravity-supported temperature at the base of the troposphere – yes, the temperature of the air determines the ocean surface temperature, not vice versa.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Roy Spencer, in his current article about skeptics, wrote
    [i]
    “the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere”[/i]

    So, given that the greenhouse gas, water vapour makes the temperature gradient less steep, maybe you’d care to explain this strange anomaly, Roy. (We’ll confine it to the troposphere, as 99% of water vapour is therein.)

    Your physics gets worse and worse, Roy.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]John,[/b]

    After writing my comment, I read Greg’s comment [i]”PSI and you personally need to rethink the strategy and start from scratch, focusing on the key point GHE in the most understandable way.”[/i]

    For once I agree with him, but if you want an article that nails it, that article has to be about what really determines planetary temperatures.

    [url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/#comment-909809]BigWaveDave[/url] nailed it over two years ago, and you need to heed what he wrote, because he was right. There are now several of us pointing out the importance of the gravito-thermal effect which, by the way, I’ve explained quite clearly in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] and even you, without a solid background in physics, could probably understand it.

    I’m still willing to write an article, but you’ll have to sort out the fact that Postma and Latour still fly in the face of the evidence for the gravito-thermal effect in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube. And all their radiation concepts are invalidated by virtue of the fact that the main GH gas, water vapour, cools rather than warms. Real data from the real world confirms this, and thus confirms that they are wrong in going along with the IPCC on this concept.

    [b]Radiation to the surface is not the primary determinant of the temperature thereof.[/b]

    How could it be when 70% of Earth’s surface is a thin almost completely transparent water layer which hardly absorbs any radiation at all?

    [b]The huge mistake in climatology is that they implicitly assume that the absorptivity of the thin surface layer of water is equal to its emissivity.[/b]

    But what slows surface cooling are nitrogen and oxygen molecules, outnumbering carbon dioxide ones by nearly 2,500:1. And it doesn’t matter, because the surface cools to the same supported temperature regardless of whether or not it takes a few minutes longer to do so at night.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    A good article, John, until we get down to the Postama bit all about radiation, which is not what is the primary determinant of planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures.

    There’s virtually no incident solar radiation reaching the lower troposphere of Uranus, a planet that is nearly 30 times further from the Sun than we are. And there’s no surface there anyway to trigger upward convection.

    The energy gets down there by the process explained in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url], and the whole paradigm is totally different.

    [b]PSI will have no real strength until it focusses attention on the real paradigm based on the gravito-thermal effect, clearly demonstrated with huge centrifugal force in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube.[/b]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Pichampness:

    What you say is right, and I wrote a paper on Radiated Energy (here in the PSI publications menu) over two years ago.

    But since writing that paper I have come to realise that the whole radiation issue is a red herring. Planetary surface temperatures are “supported” by the temperature at the base of the troposphere. Back radiation does slow radiative cooling of the surface as it approaches the supported temperature, but conduction to nitrogen, oxygen etc plays a far greater role.

    However, regardless of the rate of cooling (which just extends the warmth of the day into the evening) the end temperature is reached sooner or later during the night. It is this minimum which is used for climate records. All this is in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] of ocurse.

    [b]To defeat the lukes and warmists you have to get them to see they are working within an irrelevant paradigm.[/b]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The above is an [b]OPEN LETTER to Dr ROY SPENCER[/b] (Sorry I omitted the title.)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Your very first item in today’s [url=http://drroyspencer.com]blog[/url] is completely rebutted with sound physics in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] and in none of your 10 items do you come even close to understanding the whole new 21st century paradigm. Instead you continue to repeat IPCC arguments (like that about effective radiating altitudes rising) which are spoken about by John O’Sullivan whom I quote from his article today …

    [i]”After 30 years of these ‘Chicken Little’ alarmist scare stories independent scientists, specialists in a myriad of related disciplines, are speaking out about what they see is junk science. The “experts” – those generalists that dominate the undeniably infant field of research that is climate science – are finally being called to account. Climate realists are increasingly telling the alarmists to stop computer-modeling Earth as if it were a greenhouse! The reason is two-fold: first, it is obvious to experts from the “hard” sciences that Earth’s atmosphere does not act in any way like a greenhouse. Second, and more embarrassing for the “experts,” despite a huge increase in human CO2 emissions over recent decades our planet stubbornly refuses to get any warmer. In short, the real world shows no proof of any CO2-driven GHE whatsoever.”[/i]
    [b]
    You have no [i]understanding[/i] of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url] which “states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.”[/b]

    Instead you quote a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in non-gravitational systems, or in a horizontal plane in a gravitational system. Read what Wikipedia says …
    [b][i]
    “For this reason, gravitational systems tend towards non-even distribution of mass and energy.”[/i][/b]

    The “lapse rate” is not a result of air rising and cooling. The gas in a planet’s atmosphere can also fall and warm. The thermal gradient (badly named a lapse rate) allows heat transfer downwards by diffusion into warmer regions when the thermodynamic equilibrium is disrupted with new energy absorbed higher up. That is the only valid explanation as to how energy gets down into the Uranus troposphere and into the surface of Venus. Your understanding of what happens on other planets is, frankly, “school-kid fissics.”

    [b]The thermal gradient forms at the molecular level [i]because[/i] it is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
    [/b]
    You have a lot of real physics yet to learn.

    As this open letter will also be posted on several other climate blogs you might do well to actually read what is in my book and admit your errors, Roy, because the longer it goes on, and slight cooling continues until at least 2027, the more embarrassing it is going to be for you eventually.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Plchampness

    |

    Call me Thomas if you like ( the disciple who doubted and wanted some physical proof of the resurrection).

    Everyone knows that a source can’t be warmed by returning even 100% of its radiation with a perfect reflector is still not good enough.

    In fact the majority of skeptics and 100% of the alarmists seem to accept the opposite. I have therefore cast around for empirical or experimental observations that can distinguish the two cases. Either reflected radiation contributes to warming a body or it does not.

    The Woods/Nahle experiment is a good start. Comparative climate observations of wet vs dry climates by Carl Bremer and Doug Cotton add further evidence.

    I have tried a number of different experiments including a variation of the Anthony Watts light bulb experiment, which corrects for his error. In no case so far have I demonstrated any warming by reflected radiation.

    A problem is achieving sufficiently rigorous results,using amateur equipment. My current project is an experiment using a thermos flask with the silvering removed. I hope to remove any confounding contributions from conduction, studying only radiative heat transfers.
    Unfortunately, removing the silvering meant loosing the vacuum and putting a good vacuum back in the flask is not an easy task.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    John, to cut the long story short, we should treat the AGW like a case before a court of law. CO2 is accused of heating “the world” or more exactly the surface of the Earth. The IPCC represent the prosecution by presenting their reports. In my humble understanding, a good defense attorney would first of all check if the accused has an alibi. Fortunately for us, CO2 has one.

    The IPCC state that CO2 warms the surface of the Earth by back radiation, but we can easily demonstrate that such a process is absolutely impossible physically, no back radiation heating is possible, neither from CO2 nor from anything else. No experiments, no references to thermodynamics professors and textbooks are necessary. The matter is unbelievably simple. In short, even if 100% radiation is returned to the source by a perfect reflector, the situation is not different from 2 equal bodies of equal temperature facing each other, and practically everyone knows, that those bodies do not heat each other. Done.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Greg, thanks for the offer. I’d welcome any submissions from you and will consider them carefully. Our goal is to constantly improve our science and the quality of the message we use to convey it.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    Being first and foremost a belief system and not a genuine scientific endeavor/discipline global warming (climate change) is immune to facts and reason. Humans are believers first and foremost. That means there is a switch in our minds that turn our minds off whenever something contradicts our beliefs. Slayers are no exceptions in this respect.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    John, although we apparently share the same goal, I allow me to say that your article is full of invalid argumentation and weak points. I can go into details and sort of “peer-review” it, if you wish.

    This is old stuff that might have been a positive step against the AGW crap some time ago, but now it is time to move on and refine the argumentation, keeping in mind the level of the target audience.

    PSI and you personally need to rethink the strategy and start from scratch, focusing on the key point GHE in the most understandable way.

    Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.