OT, this is going to reverse a lot of Global warming
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,400
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    605
    Likes (Received)
    1989

    Default OT, this is going to reverse a lot of Global warming

    Monster typhoon barrels toward north Philippines, China | Fox News

    Think of the friction between moving air and the surface water or land features.

    Searching for equilibrium!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dewees Texas
    Posts
    1,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    485

    Default

    Let me put this idea out there and see if it has any merit, lots of smart people on this forum can say whether I am all wet or maybe this has something to do with climate change.

    A couple of years ago a cattle raisers email came in with a link to an article about a volcano that has been erupting in Alaska causing a disruption in the jet stream and being responsible for the persistent high causing the drought conditions on the west coast of the US. Aerosols and dust being the culprit in the eruption.
    Seeing a couple of news casts from the Olympics in China a couple of years ago, that mess looks bigger than a local volcano eruption. Our winters for the last couple of years have been colder in the Midwest and northeastern US and warmer in the artic. Maybe the disruption of the jet stream is more responsible for climate change than the gradual increase in clear CO2. If this idea has any merit we did this buy buying from China and making them an industrial power house to get low prices and putting our local relatively "clean" industries out of business.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    9,025
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2357

    Default

    pollution pretty bad in some spots. in Shanghai the fog smog can be so thick you cannot see much farther than 200 or 300 feet at times. flying out of Shanghai after 200 or 300 miles the sky is blue and clear. it can be quite dramatic difference at times.
    .
    i have even heard if fog smog is thick it causes cooling not warming as sun doesnt reach the ground but is absorbed miles up going through the smog
    .
    took bus ride on one of longest bridges over water in the world. like 2 hour bus ride never seeing more than a few hundred feet cause of the smog. same as going up to top of tall buildings and not seeing much to view cause its blocked by the smog.
    .
    really the pollution control laws as annoying as they can be at times in the USA it is helping to reduce smog. dont hear talk of acid rain destroying the trees much anymore. thats cause coal fired power plants must use some sort of scrubber to get most of acid causing dust out of the smoke stack exhaust usually by a form of water spray going through smoke. coal ash has mercury and cadmium and other nasty stuff in it. 99 out of 100 experts advice against putting coal ash in your garden to prevent you being slowly poisoned by it. most agree letting the coal ash go in the air and come down after 100 miles or more is not good. i would worry more about the other stuff than the C02
    .
    and usually when i hear somebody worried about C02 and global warming i ask do they mow their lawn or do they allow trees to grow 100 feet tall into a dense forest so dark at ground level you cannot see cause its that dark. thats the actual natural state if it rains enough trees grow so tall and thick a natural forest is very dark at ground level. mow your lawn you are preventing natural C02 absorption . oil in Alaska obviously is from sub tropical growth over many hundreds of thousands of years so obviously Alaska is a lot colder now than it used to be. billions of years ago before life there was a lot more C02 in the air so actually it could be said the natural state is higher C02 and all living things are preventing the natural state of the earth

  4. Likes steve45 liked this post
  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Beaumont, TX, USA
    Posts
    4,308
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    138
    Likes (Received)
    1167

    Default

    I am so tired of hearing that global warming or climate change is "established" or "proven" science.

    Even the most fundamental or basic theories or laws in science are subject to further refinement and even complete change. This has gone on for centuries, for as long as there has been science and it does continue even to this day.

    The study of an immensely complicated thing, like the atmosphere or the climate is so much more difficult than those fundamental things that I find it hard to think that anything can ever be considered a "fact" in that area or any area of science. And, baring an actual, MAJOR, and GLOBAL catastrophic event, which we have not had, the conclusions that some, who call themselves scientists, can not really be established even as the roughest, preliminary conclusions without hundreds and hundreds of years of study and observation, not just a decade or two.

    I don't know if climate change is real or not. I have an open mind on it as do I on all other areas of science. I do know or at least suspect that it is more of a political thing than a scientific one. This is very clearly shown by the reluctance of the "scientists" to even consider different theories or to allow others, who disagree, to have a real voice in the discussion. We are the evil humans who are always wrong in our actions. We are destroying everything (take your pick) and must be stopped. Of course, when we stop one thing, they will start on another.

    Real science is about observation, the formulation of theories based on those observations, AND the debate among the scientific community on the validity of those theories. That debate leads to further observation and newer, better theories, and then more debate. It is an endless cycle. And almost every theory ever postulated by scientists has been questioned by other scientists and sooner or later all of them are overturned or, at least, changed to account for further observations.

    I am sorry, but no matter what ignorant people say, the science is NOT settled and it never will be. It is always open to further evolution. It is completely contrary to the nature of science to proclaim anything to be "settled" or proven. And this is as it should be.

    Now, please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that some things should not be changed. Pollution is not a good thing and should be avoided. And it may make good sense to take some precautions. But we should do these things with an open mind, not one that is closed.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    2,912
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1506
    Likes (Received)
    1815

    Default

    There was a baby.
    And some bath water.

    True story..

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,397
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2093
    Likes (Received)
    1907

    Default

    Just because one is tired of hearing facts doesn't make them less true.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    389
    Likes (Received)
    4415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EPAIII View Post
    I am so tired of hearing that global warming or climate change is "established" or "proven" science.

    Even the most fundamental or basic theories or laws in science are subject to further refinement and even complete change. This has gone on for centuries, for as long as there has been science and it does continue even to this day. . .
    Seems to me that you're wrong at the macro level about this and right at the micro level.

    As a guide to what's happening in the real world, the most fundamental theories and laws of science beat, say, various religions' ideas that Pi is 3.0, that the earth (counting the generations) is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that God wants us to burn up every bit of fossil fuel as fast as we can (or he wouldn't have put them here those 6000+ years ago).

    To put it another way, a science that updates its understanding as new facts come in beats (in accuracy) any dogma that's unwilling to recognize reality. Turns out that Galileo was right, thousands of abusing priests suggest the Pope really isn't infallible, we sometimes need a few more decimal places for Pi, the earth has been around quite a while, and burning fossil fuels in contributing to some extent in trapping a bit more of the sun's energy here on earth.

    What we do know from science is that if you add energy to the planet's system, then we get things like more and more violent storms, melting ice, rising seas, and the like. That's somewhere around 99.9% true (science not claiming to be infallible). We can see and measure it for ourselves.

    Where you're right is that figuring out the specifics of our incredibly complex climate system isn't something we're yet very good at. As a comparison, decades ago I worked with software vendors doing advanced non-linear finite element analysis. One of them, talked about how they were just about to crack the "air bag problem." This was the problem of figuring out what a car air bag was going to do in an accident -- and it was about as complicated a multi-physics problem we kind of had a handle on. Climate, as a multi-physics (and chemistry, etc.) problem is some orders of magnitude more complex than this. And our climate models share much of the non-linear finite element mathematical underpinnings of, say, the air bag problem.

    What can be said is that the increased energy input to the earth IS demonstrably affecting our climate and that it would be just plain stupid not to take some common sense steps towards accommodating this.

    For example, back in 2012 the North Caroline legislature, once it had a conservative majority, banned any predication of future sea rise, storm, etc. in giving permits for coastal development. Even the Democratic governor let it pass. No doubt wealthy land developers were behind much of this, buying a bit of political favor all around. The thing is, storms headed right now toward's North Carolina's beach front homes - with more in the future -- will likely trash many millions, maybe a billions, worth of recent development encouraged right in harms way.

    Personally, I'm happy if an individual owner wants to build a beach front mansion in a flood zone. Just as long as they're willing to pay for their rescue, flood and storm damage, etc. I do think they should have been warned, given what we knew at the time. It probably wouldn't have hurt to ask developers to raise the homes a bit and take other protections (as we might similarly expect in tornado, earthquake, wild fire, etc. country -- all incidentally affected by more energy put into our climate system).

    As it is, the developers will have gotten what they want (in part by making this party of identity politics) and the new beach front owners will be at least partially bailed out at our expense.

    Most of the folks who don't want to accept even simple climate chemistry and thermodynamics are those profiting from it. Some (notably the oil-industry Kochs) have managed to make this part of a culture vs. science "war" to win political and even quasi-religious support for their profiteering.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    12,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3735
    Likes (Received)
    5885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    Just because one is tired of hearing facts doesn't make them less true.
    Yes but just like Y2K remember that world ender? does not make this disasters true either.

    Im more than happy to contemplate adding - increaser CO2 will change things in a closed environment. Im less happy with how sound any of the predictions are especially when we know that year to year the worlds climate is far from the stability of a ticking pendulum. Looking at the data just from our life times is hardly solid when looking at a system with so many varying inputs and varying natural rhythms that all run at different speeds.

    Equally i have big issue with paying taxes to fix this world ending disaster when but the smallest of slithers of that money actually get to be spent on that problem.

    You want us skeptics to believe in climate change, sorry but your going to have to start to show some really solid models that actually model a day to day variables and actually deliver true results. As science goes climate change is not much more solidly proven than any religion can be, take your pic which one. Good science comes from funding both sides and being able to predict, prove and also modify the experiments end outcomes. Why is the UK government so afraid to let the high altitude cloud seeding experiments in Cambridge go ahead if they have nothing to hide? If we only need but fractions of a percent change in planet wide solar absorption then its well within our technological powers to simply treat the symptom whilst working on fixing the cause.

    Good science stands on its own two feet and can be solidly supported, climate change weather you like it or not has way to much bullshit hype and arguably if started to day would be listed as fake news. Thats not to say im up for polluting, im not, but im just not sold on this world ender, just like i was not Y2K, the end of the myan calender and all the other totality events in my life time so far.

  10. Likes digger doug, MetalCarnage liked this post
  11. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Geneva Illinois USA
    Posts
    5,143
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2026
    Likes (Received)
    1916

    Default

    For the record, smog is a contraction of the words, smoke and fog so fog smog makes no sense.

    Tom

  12. Likes tdmidget liked this post
  13. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    5,945
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    899

    Default

    Y2K was true but people knew it was coming and did stuff to prevent loss. I worked at a cannery that trashed $50,000 of canned fruit until some one asked why? It was expired by 100 years according to the computer so it had been trashed as expired.
    They fixed that problem.
    Bill D

  14. Likes Bobw liked this post
  15. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    5,945
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    899

    Default

    my solution would be to take aluminum dust and spray it in space to reflect the sun.

  16. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3158
    Likes (Received)
    1503

    Default

    One major reason Y2K was not a (business) world ender is that the problem was identified well ahead of time, and people worked on solutions for the problem before the dates rolled over. Frequently, the solution was as "simple" as upgrading their office software. Earth-ending apocalyses like the Mayan calender crap, invisible Planet X crap, and all that is just that: superstitious crap.

    There is no question that human industrial and agricultural activity is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, and at a vastly faster pace in the last 300 years than during all the previous duration of the human species. That is determined by actual measurements of actual ice and soil samples. No modeling required.

    There is no question that greenhouse gases have the effect they are claimed to have. Again, empirical laboratory demonstration. No modeling required. Indeed, the basic facts were known in the mid-1800's! Over one and a half centuries ago!

    The uncertainties about climate change are in making long-term predictions about a very complex system we do not completely understand, over which we have extremely limited leverage. I agree with EPAIII that we don't have a proven, comprehensive all-aspects-covered model of the Earth's climate. My problem with his position is that we will never completely understand the system, and waiting until we do is a fool's game. When you have limited leverage, the time to apply it is early. Wait too long and you're screwed.

    The essence of the climate hazards we face were well understood in the 1970's. We have already waited more than a generation to seriously address those hazards. While we have very significantly improved air quality and generally improved water quality in North America and Europe, we have done less than nothing with regard to greenhouse gases anywhere in the world.

    What I think too few people appreciate is that many aspects of that "very complex system" are not linear in their response. There are several things subject to "tipping points" where we may see a very rapid change, totally out of our control, which will slam the system one way or another. To mention just one: We are now releasing large quantities of methane gas, a greenhouse gas, from the previously frozen permafrost in Artic areas. We know this because you can take photos (and gas samples) of Artic ponds absolutely bubbling with gas. No modeling required. No conjecture. You can take a tourist trip and a CH4 meter and have a look for yourself. It is possible we have already passed the critical threshold for runaway release. Greenhouse gases warm the Earth, warming Earth melts permafrost, melting permafrost releases more greenhouse gases. Waiting until we "fully understand" and "have complete consensus" on the issue is irresponsibly reckless.

    If you want a nightmare scenario, it's that the world goes into strong positive feedback on methane release from permafrost and oceanic methane hydrates (look it up) and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, aka the Atlantic conveyor belt, (look it up) shuts down. That's going to make a 2 degrees C temperature rise look like a vacation on the beach for most of the northern hemisphere.

    It was not until the 1980's that we realized the danger of a subduction zone earthquake off the coasts of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Up to that point, California's San Andreas fault was considered the major looming threat to life and property on the Pacific coast. We now know that we are due for a subduction zone quake further north which will make anything the San Andreas is capable of producing look like a damp squib next to a stick of dynamite. The resulting tsunami will obliterate all the towns immediately along the coast. All the roads and highways between the coast and the Cascade mountains, not excluding Interstate 5, will become impassable in many places due to destruction of roadbeds, collapse of embankments and failure of bridges. The only major fuel distribution hub for SW Washingon and NW Oregon will sink into the liquified soil of the Columbia river flood plain. Some of the associated pipelines will be torn into pieces separated by more than 50 feet. There will be a nearly total loss of freight transportation, fuel, water and power over thousands of square miles. Municipal water, gas and electric supplies may not be restored for months, as much as 6 months in some cases. This is a mind-boggling prospect, but we have people resisting spending money on seismic upgrades and disaster preparedness because "scientists can't tell us when it will happen" or "scientists can't prove it will happen again". What scientists can tell us is that we have already gone longer than the average interval between major subduction zone quakes.

    And what scientists can tell us about climate change is that it's happening now, humans are contributing to it, and we are closer every year to losing our ability to stop it. Quibbling about the predictive accuracy of this week's climate models is foolish against that basic set of facts.

  17. Likes Mcgyver, dcsipo, Mark Rand, carbonbl, PeteM and 7 others liked this post
  18. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    1,772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1793
    Likes (Received)
    575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfriedberg View Post
    One major reason Y2K was not a (business) world ender is that the problem was identified well ahead of time, and people worked on solutions for the problem before the dates rolled over. Frequently, the solution was as "simple" as upgrading their office software. Earth-ending apocalyses like the Mayan calender crap, invisible Planet X crap, and all that is just that: superstitious crap.

    There is no question that human industrial and agricultural activity is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, and at a vastly faster pace in the last 300 years than during all the previous duration of the human species. That is determined by actual measurements of actual ice and soil samples. No modeling required.

    There is no question that greenhouse gases have the effect they are claimed to have. Again, empirical laboratory demonstration. No modeling required. Indeed, the basic facts were known in the mid-1800's! Over one and a half centuries ago!

    The uncertainties about climate change are in making long-term predictions about a very complex system we do not completely understand, over which we have extremely limited leverage. I agree with EPAIII that we don't have a proven, comprehensive all-aspects-covered model of the Earth's climate. My problem with his position is that we will never completely understand the system, and waiting until we do is a fool's game. When you have limited leverage, the time to apply it is early. Wait too long and you're screwed.

    The essence of the climate hazards we face were well understood in the 1970's. We have already waited more than a generation to seriously address those hazards. While we have very significantly improved air quality and generally improved water quality in North America and Europe, we have done less than nothing with regard to greenhouse gases anywhere in the world.

    What I think too few people appreciate is that many aspects of that "very complex system" are not linear in their response. There are several things subject to "tipping points" where we may see a very rapid change, totally out of our control, which will slam the system one way or another. To mention just one: We are now releasing large quantities of methane gas, a greenhouse gas, from the previously frozen permafrost in Artic areas. We know this because you can take photos (and gas samples) of Artic ponds absolutely bubbling with gas. No modeling required. No conjecture. You can take a tourist trip and a CH4 meter and have a look for yourself. It is possible we have already passed the critical threshold for runaway release. Greenhouse gases warm the Earth, warming Earth melts permafrost, melting permafrost releases more greenhouse gases. Waiting until we "fully understand" and "have complete consensus" on the issue is irresponsibly reckless.

    If you want a nightmare scenario, it's that the world goes into strong positive feedback on methane release from permafrost and oceanic methane hydrates (look it up) and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, aka the Atlantic conveyor belt, (look it up) shuts down. That's going to make a 2 degrees C temperature rise look like a vacation on the beach for most of the northern hemisphere.

    It was not until the 1980's that we realized the danger of a subduction zone earthquake off the coasts of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Up to that point, California's San Andreas fault was considered the major looming threat to life and property on the Pacific coast. We now know that we are due for a subduction zone quake further north which will make anything the San Andreas is capable of producing look like a damp squib next to a stick of dynamite. The resulting tsunami will obliterate all the towns immediately along the coast. All the roads and highways between the coast and the Cascade mountains, not excluding Interstate 5, will become impassable in many places due to destruction of roadbeds, collapse of embankments and failure of bridges. The only major fuel distribution hub for SW Washingon and NW Oregon will sink into the liquified soil of the Columbia river flood plain. Some of the associated pipelines will be torn into pieces separated by more than 50 feet. There will be a nearly total loss of freight transportation, fuel, water and power over thousands of square miles. Municipal water, gas and electric supplies may not be restored for months, as much as 6 months in some cases. This is a mind-boggling prospect, but we have people resisting spending money on seismic upgrades and disaster preparedness because "scientists can't tell us when it will happen" or "scientists can't prove it will happen again". What scientists can tell us is that we have already gone longer than the average interval between major subduction zone quakes.

    And what scientists can tell us about climate change is that it's happening now, humans are contributing to it, and we are closer every year to losing our ability to stop it. Quibbling about the predictive accuracy of this week's climate models is foolish against that basic set of facts.
    Well said and a very auspicious post #4444

  19. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    12,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3735
    Likes (Received)
    5885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D View Post
    my solution would be to take aluminum dust and spray it in space to reflect the sun.
    No need for aluminium, plane sad old water and from nothing more high tech than a pressure washer spray nozzle should be all it takes and not all that high up either.

    Kinda sounds morbid, but if we are not as a "collective" with the tech we have at this point able to over come something that is this relatively simple cause and effect then i personally think man kind needs to go extinct and something else needs a shot at it. IMHO it really far more comes down to are we prepared to take a step to a higher cost life style were energies true value is a lot more in line with what is naturally available or do we all still want the cheap energy that lets people live in places were environmentally we probably should not. Oil, coal and gas has been too cheap, really a case more of if we run out before we kill ourselves or its price goes up enough that its brought inline with clean energy sources.

    If the doom sayers are right, we are probably in the final few hundred years of relatively easy human habitation of this planet, both resource and environment wise. That means change or that means find another place to call home. Currently though we still seam to prefer to spend most our efforts killing one another over one unproven god or set of beliefs or another. i think its a pretty good bet based on human history if food does become short it won't be a tech solution to fix it, just more wars and killing, but hay would be nice to be wrong on that.

    Either way, if what ever species takes over from us gets to read this, i wish them luck and above all i hope they can overcome our stupid human levels of unsatisfyable greed because thats the fundamental issue as i see it. Its not the oil, or the plastic or the coal, its the fact were hard wired to take the easiest lowest effort approach and thats probably whats going to suffocate us.

    As to the sanandraus fault or any other "natural" catastorphy, i think by now we all realise thats just a small blip of a few percent of mankind at most on the radar evolution wise, sad thing is we know about it and still chose to build - live there, can't fix dumb i guess?

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    South Carolina
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    55

    Default

    I take a different view. There are simply way, way too many people. What other large land animal comes close to the human population? We're basically weeds, pushing into all corners of the globe and wiping out native species. The fix is so simple- keep it in your pants for a couple generations. But no, it's our 'right' to have as many children as we want. Fine. Deal with it. Mother Nature will eventually make a 'correction'.

  21. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Beaver County Alb. Canada
    Posts
    1,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    497
    Likes (Received)
    866

    Default

    Its snowing here ,has been for the last 3 days and were expecting more.
    Man made or not the weather is changing ,and fast.

  22. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default Not all climate change is bad

    I recently read an article saying that the beginnings of climate change can be traced back several thousand years, corresponding to the beginning of human agriculture. The article said that, but for this change, we should be in a new ice age, at least the beginnings of one, using the natural cycle of ice ages ( as best understood).
    So, some climate change is OK. We’re just getting too much of it now.
    Jack

  23. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    ny usa
    Posts
    307
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    215

    Default

    I burned a few gallons of gas on the bike track last night, taking the stand ups out today. All 2 stroke, all run leaded race gas.
    Love that smell.......

    and, trees? They're for bumping the rear wheel off, to set up a turn. Duh.

  24. Likes steve45 liked this post
  25. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Geilenkirchen, Germany
    Posts
    2,044
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1225
    Likes (Received)
    1010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    Just because one is tired of hearing facts doesn't make them less true.
    The problem is not the facts being true, it is the bullshit conclusions the less informed draw.

  26. Likes moonlight machine liked this post
  27. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    marysville ohio
    Posts
    8,825
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2491
    Likes (Received)
    5657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    Monster typhoon barrels toward north Philippines, China | Fox News

    Think of the friction between moving air and the surface water or land features.

    Searching for equilibrium!
    Just blame it all on Trump! The news people are!


Tags for this Thread

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
  •  
2