|
a lovely poster posted:The thing is, we aren't. We're first worlders living in a time on unhearalded prosperity. Your life is incredible. Most people don't even get the opportunity to understand why our long-term picture might not look so bright. You will have a higher standard of living than pretty much anyone historically speaking. The "horrors" we'll all face have been faced before, and quite frankly survival has been more bleak for humanity in the past- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory Having a little baby and thinking about the downhill process that has accelerated over the last 30 years of life isn't something that's easily removed from one's mind. Where will we be when she's 30? How much worse will it all be when I'm a grandfather? That we can unequivocally state it will be worse, without being able to quantify how much worse it will be is inescapable. Turning the news off I switch to a show like Futurescapes, and the depressed nature of my outlook does not improve (though that may be attributed to James Woods exposure). My mind reels at the joy of being alive at a time when so much science fiction is becoming real, but there is a deep sorrow that is only enhanced by livng in a tiny town in Louisiana surrounded by at least 5 petrochemical plants.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Seems to me we're looking at a few pretty inevitable global events that individually threaten all life on the planet, and they will come together to cause more complex problems and cascades of problems that complement each other. The biggest root problems I think of typically are the acidification of the oceans, already well underway, the temperature change, well under way. What else? And I see statistics and scientific papers. What about something less abstract, even if just speculation? Can anybody project what the most significant results and/or problems will occur, and some (maybe extremely) rough idea of when or at least what order they may come in? I mean we talk about the temperature increase. We talk about molluscs and arthropods dying off, probably within our lifetimes. We've talked about proliferation of fungi and bacteria that thrive in warmer climates, and another proliferation of invertebrates like jellyfish. Can we put together a futurological congress here, and name some of the bigger consequences of global warming and our oceans turning to vinegar? Has anybody even put together any kind of image of how things will be changed, or how many and who will suffer when, as a prime example, we allow our oceans to die? Or what it will look like, smell like? I think we're looking at stuff we'll get to see in our own lifetimes. Any rough idea what it's going to be like in more concrete terms? I mean Kierkegaard is fine and all but I'm more interested in practical reality, usually, and I think most people are. -- Probably wrong there, most people just want to be comfortable. So then, how is my comfort level going to be affected by a what, 3.5C difference in planetary temperature, and the oceans being dead? SnakePlissken fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
The oceans aren't going to "die", the biological diversity will just be greatly decreased. Think ocean full of jellyfish because there's nothing left to eat them. And honestly, overfishing is just a big a problem as climate change is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The oceans aren't going to "die", the biological diversity will just be greatly decreased. Think ocean full of jellyfish because there's nothing left to eat them. And honestly, overfishing is just a big a problem as climate change is. I'm imagining that should the Ph change as much as predicted, the oceans may well die. And the jellyfish aren't merely proliferating because of lack of predators. They are filling in the places left by other species that have been depleted. -- ED: I'm stepping away for a bit to actually get some work done. Please feel free to respond, refute, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
SnakePlissken posted:I'm imagining that should the Ph change as much as predicted, the oceans may well die. And the jellyfish aren't merely proliferating because of lack of predators. They are filling in the places left by other species that have been depleted. Put it this way. What are the Ph changes forecast? I haven't seen ANYTHING remotely close to the kinds of levels of acidity that would be required to make the oceans uninhabitable. In fact, I can just flat out tell you that it's basically impossible. You are seriously underestimating just how big the loving ocean is and just how well life can adapt to changes in Ph. This is probably in the realm of "never going to happen in the near geologic future, like millions and millions of years", 30 years for something like that to take place would be... I just don't even know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The oceans aren't going to "die", the biological diversity will just be greatly decreased. Or they aren't, they just are. I think you're using an overly literal understanding of 'die'. Yes, strictly speaking, there is life in a car park. But compared with woodland, it's dead, and you won't comfort anyone who mourns it by saying 'there are still lots of pigeons'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Or they aren't, they just are. I think you're using an overly literal understanding of 'die'. Yes, strictly speaking, there is life in a car park. But compared with woodland, it's dead, and you won't comfort anyone who mourns it by saying 'there are still lots of pigeons'. It's D&D, I think we can afford to avoid using language like that. Talking about the death of the oceans w/r/t Climate Change is being overly dramatic and just turns people off. We're talking about a guy fantasizing about how the smell of the ocean will change, it's absurd. SnakePlissken posted:Has anybody even put together any kind of image of how things will be changed, or how many and who will suffer when, as a prime example, we allow our oceans to die? Or what it will look like, smell like? I think we're looking at stuff we'll get to see in our own lifetimes. Any rough idea what it's going to be like in more concrete terms? I mean Kierkegaard is fine and all but I'm more interested in practical reality, usually, and I think most people are. "Practical reality" indeed
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:It's D&D, I think we can afford to avoid using language like that. Talking about the death of the oceans w/r/t Climate Change is being overly dramatic and just turns people off. Except that we're looking at the loss of most higher-order life in the oceans. Acidification really fucks with the food supply that everything there eats. That also fucks with the food supply for a huge chunk of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Except that we're looking at the loss of most higher-order life in the oceans. Do you have a link to something that substantiates this? Is this really something we are facing in our lifetimes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Do you have a link to something that substantiates this? Is this really something we are facing in our lifetimes? Acidification will prevent many plankton from making shells, stuff like diatoms and foraminifera. The entire food chain in the ocean is based on these. Without this the larger filter feeders and nekton starve and die off. Without the smaller nekton, apex predators and large filter feeders like whales cannot sustain themselves. Its probably one of the least controversial parts of what happens when an ocean becomes more acidic. http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/OA1.pdf Page 8 is where it starts talking about dissolving shells. Its not just the smaller plankton either, its things like coral reefs (already we're seeing mass die offs of these and coral bleaching). Reefs are the harbors of biodiversity in the ocean. So we're losing those, and the bottom of the food chain is falling out. Its bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
I realize it's bad, but that's not equal to "most higher-order life" What's the definition of most higher order life and do you really think we're facing the extinction of 50%+ of those species in the next 50 years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
We've had plenty of shocks in the past that have seriously affected the lives of people in first world countries - not just the most vulnerable, things like the financial crisis and the resulting political response (protect that system and push the costs onto populations through austerity measures) have impacted people across society. Climate change will potentially have effects that will gently caress up the established order on a wide scale - from things like food availability to environmental disasters. The cost and friction involved in even trying to recover from or mitigate these issues will have far-reaching consequences, and they'll absolutely fall on the average person in developed countries. Not as much as people in poorer countries of course, but I don't see how anyone can believe they're sure to be insulated from the bad effects unless they're already part of the elite. This is not a world built around cooperative approaches to social equality and solving problems
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I realize it's bad, but that's not equal to "most higher-order life" What's the definition of most higher order life and do you really think we're facing the extinction of 50%+ of those species in the next 50 years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
There were some articles when the book Stung! by Lisa-Ann Gershwin was published. Unfortunately I haven't read the book but I got the idea that it forecasted a future where, like in prehistoric times when the ocean was similarly accidic, it would only contain jellyfish as higher lifeforms.quote:We are creating a world more like the late Precambrian than the late 1800s—a world where jellyfish ruled the seas and organisms with shells didn’t exist. We are creating a world where we humans may soon be unable to survive, or want to. quote:When I began writing this book,… I had a naive gut feeling that all was still salvageable…. But I think I underestimated how severely we have damaged our oceans and their inhabitants. I now think that we have pushed them too far, past some mysterious tipping point that came and went without fanfare, with no red circle on the calendar and without us knowing the precise moment it all became irreversible. I now sincerely believe that it is only a matter of time before the oceans as we know them and need them to be become very different places indeed. No coral reefs teeming with life. No more mighty whales or wobbling penguins. No lobsters or oysters. Sushi without fish. It's all awfully third hand, so if someone has read the book, or can comment on the facts ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I realize it's bad, but that's not equal to "most higher-order life" What's the definition of most higher order life and do you really think we're facing the extinction of 50%+ of those species in the next 50 years? While it is difficult to give you an exact number, I'll present the best info I was able to find. First off, the biggest study conducted on marine biodiveristy was the Census of Marine Life, a 10 year study which concluded in 2010.  So the more iconic vertebrates most of us are familiar with from the ocean only make up about 2% of Biodiversity. Of concern is that crustaceans and mollusks are the most numerous in the ocean, constituting 36% of all marine biodiversity. These species depend on calcium carbonate shells for survival and will be directly impacted by ocean acidification. Any other species which depends on these animals, and more importantly their eggs and larvae, for food will be impacted indirectly. This includes any open ocean species, as well as deep sea species which depend on deadfalls and nutrient rain as primary food sources.  The distribution of species finds that biodiversity hotspots are concentrated near the coasts, in tropical latitudes, particularly near coral reefs. This link notes that 25% of all fish in the ocean depend on coral reefs for their shelters and nurseries. Coral reefs harbor 25% of all the fish in the ocean, and they appear to be in trouble even without the predicted acidification (due in large part to agricultural run off). Fish only constitute roughly 12% or marine species, and if we were to assume that 3% of them were living in coral reefs (a likely underestimate as coral reefs are biodiversity hotspots not unlike rain forests, most of the species live there), than the percentage climbs to ~39%, before taking into account the effects on other connections in the food web. The paper does not break down what % of Cnidaria are corals, so I won't ballpark that number in there. So directly a third of all marine species will be impacted by ocean acidification, and thats before you ever get to the fish and larger animals which eat these creatures. All taken together, extinction of 50% of marine species is starting to feel on the conservative side, to me at least. Edit: we are sooooo hosed Yiggy fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
I for one am looking forward to subsisting on ration bars made of soy, maltodextrin and dried tilapia flakes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I for one am looking forward to subsisting on ration bars made of soy, maltodextrin and dried tilapia flakes. Does it have to be tilapia? Such a nasty tasting fish 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Does it have to be tilapia? Jellyfish! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Squalid posted:OH MAN Brazil must be the most depressing place to study environmental issues. Hey at least you don't have to fear peak oil thanks to all that biofuel, best not to think very hard on land use issues. Yeah, is pretty worrying right now. Dilma's is kinda of a "leftist technocrat". She worries about development and gently caress everything else. Deflorestation is growing (due to soy culture and cattle mostly) and Belo Monte (and new gigantic hydroelectric plant being built) is considered a social and ecological disaster (even though hydro is relatively clean energy, the amount of deflorestation and the damage to rivers is enormous). As for the highway, it is pretty old and nowdays is mostly a dangeours dirt track and hardly used. They want to finally put tarmac on it, but I dont think that's going to happen anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I realize it's bad, but that's not equal to "most higher-order life" What's the definition of most higher order life and do you really think we're facing the extinction of 50%+ of those species in the next 50 years? If an important part low in the food chain disappears, everything above it is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 23:56
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:If an important part low in the food chain disappears, everything above it is hosed. Yes, I realize how food chains work. I am questioning the magnitude and speed of such a change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Yes, I realize how food chains work. I am questioning the magnitude and speed of such a change. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/page5.php We don't appear to know quite enough to accurately predict the level of damage yet, but what we know currently warrants worry. Also keep in mind that, for instance, diatoms are typically two thirds of phytoplancton biomass. e: the link says quote:Continued warming due to the build up of carbon dioxide is predicted to reduce the amounts of larger phytoplankton such as diatoms), compared to smaller types, like cyanobacteria. Shifts in the relative abundance of larger versus smaller species of phytoplankton have been observed already in places around the world, but whether it will change overall productivity remains uncertain. This is definitely going to do something to the food web - planctic consumers are adapted to filter food particles of a certain size from the water so a shift to smaller algae will favour different species (obvious group where this will and on a smaller scale has happened: small crustaceans). These species may or may not be a well-suited food source for fish spawn etc., so a number of larger species (eg fish) would be expected to strongly shift in abundance. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
quote:Traditional processing methods, carried out by a Jellyfish Master, involve a 20- to 40-day multi-phase procedure in which after removing the gonads and mucous membranes, the umbrella and oral arms are treated with a mixture of table salt and alum, and compressed. Processing reduces liquefaction, odor, the growth of spoilage organisms, and makes the jellyfish drier and more acidic, producing a "crunchy and crispy texture."  H-how appealing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
VVV You're right, it is curing. Eating jellyfish chips is small fry compared to mass extinctions, resource wars, exoduses, and mass starvation. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
That's basically curing. Welcome to food! I'd try the Jellyfish Master's wares
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
Virtually all high-end steak goes through something similar, and the best usually grows a layer of mold that produces great flavor in the meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_aging
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:It's D&D, I think we can afford to avoid using language like that. Talking about the death of the oceans w/r/t Climate Change is being overly dramatic and just turns people off. First, regarding how things might smell. I wasn't saying that specifically in relation to the ocean's Ph changing, I don't think, but maybe I wasn't clear. It was a way of trying to make the sense of what we can expect more of a concrete, tactile, or rather olfactory idea instead of, once again, citing journals and such. I think this thread has been a bit dry due to y'all's remarkable efforts at being stringent and scientific. Second, let me also preface by saying you are responding positively to something I'm saying and I appreciate that. Your mischaracterizing my speculations as fantasizing is pretty much par for the course anywhere on the internet these days, but you generally appear to be arguing in good faith otherwise. This is what I want. I don't really want to be right about this. I want you to prove my fantasies wrong. I've been wrong before. I said Gore was gonna win by one electoral vote. I said we yanks were gonna start riding bikes more and become more health conscious. I said I wasn't gonna buy another car until I could get an electric. Now I'm driving an F-150. And if you are saying my "fantasizing" is wrong and you can offer more realistic ideas (instead of just trying to defeat me in a flame war or whatever), then that is exactly the "practical reality indeed" I'm interested in. So please, have at it. Tell me what you think we can expect, practically. My request for practical reality is just saying I'm looking for more than dry scientific facts. I want to hear how you expect these things to shake out down here in human reality, rather than just quoting papers. But that said, I think it just might smell real bad. I suspect that global warming, if it indeed causes drastic changes in the carbon makeup of the atmosphere over an extremely short time period, will likely cause a pretty dramatic increase in fungi and anaerobic bacteria both in the ocean, on land, and in our freshwater bodies. I've also read I think in this thread that there will become zones where it will become too hot for humans, as well as a number of other higher life forms, to survive without constant refrigeration. You really think that much biomass, all around the planet, is going to just vanish? It's gonna rot. I am suspecting that the life forms that will flourish in the new uninhabitable zones will, especially during the probably chaotic transition period between our current state and the new "permanently hot" phase that we're moving into, will include a really huge amount of algae, fungus, yeasts, and all the lowest life forms that are there, thankfully, to take advantage of the presence of megatons of dead organic matter. But it's not gonna be the orderly procession we see on the forest floor. To put it simply, when a third or more of the living species die off at once, over a period no more than 50-100 years, yeah, that poo poo is gonna rot and it's gonna stink. The timeframe for that much biomass to be transitioned into Kudzu, bamboo, and cockroaches is too short for it to not be a time lousy with fungus, yeast, and probably lots of stinking anaerobic stuff. And now, I've been told a number of times there are dead spots due to pollution in the oceans already, and then I'm also familiar with red tides, and I've been told red tides stink. If the plankton die off due to acidification, I think it's inevitable that other life forms move in, and some of them do indeed stink. Lots of algae stink, and so do yeasts. And those are gonna be our smelly salvation, if anything is. And while we're at it, there may be a critical mass beyond which anaerobic life forms entirely win. I think it's a prevalent theory that photosynthetic life forms colonized the earth very slowly, and "fixed" the oxygen, carbon and nitrogen content in the earth's water over a very, very long time. Like longer than vertebrates have even been around. Amirite? Are we not in the process of "unfixing" that chemical balance that the planet is based on? Isn't it a possibility that by killing off all the plankton, crabs, coral, at once we aren't opening the door for anaerobic, and as above mentioned, cyanide-based algae, sulphur based lifeforms, etc., to step in and colonize all the dead biomass? And welp, that's it for the doom and gloom. I suspect we have the science to defeat any of these problems, if we can just get our little apocalypse over with and stop being such selfish little shitheads. First, we need to stop the fighting. We will need all our military workforce to perform disaster relief and engineering tasks that will make the pyramids look like birdhouses. The great likelihood is we are too small-minded and petty to accomplish it but I'm not giving up hope. We may see a day when our governments realize being the king of a shitpile is nothing to aspire to. SnakePlissken fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Reading all of this stuff over the last few days, I guess maybe my feeling that I won't be around in 20-30 years because of this mess isn't too much of an overreaction. For what it's worth, Guy McPherson gave a talk back in 07 that believed our cities would be going dark in 2012. Gives some perspective on the man, I guess. tmfool fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
tmfool posted:Reading all of this stuff over the last few days, I guess maybe my feeling that I won't be around in 30 years because of this mess isn't too much of an overreaction. Well sorry to be so doom and gloom. I've also expected a lot of changes to happen that haven't. I'd rather be wrong here. I don't think, however, that discussing some of the worse eventualities is unwarranted. When I was a child, one of the great lakes was "officially declared dead" along with a number of other major water bodies. Our remediation efforts didn't just start by themselves, either. And if they hadn't been undertaken, the dead zones would have just spread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
tmfool posted:For what it's worth, Guy McPherson gave a talk back in 07 that believed our cities would be going dark in 2012. Gives some perspective on the man, I guess. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:That's basically curing. Welcome to food! I'd try the Jellyfish Master's wares Me too. If we can make food easily out of jellyfish, that would be like making salad out of kudzu, a windfall. We're gonna need it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:As Paper Mac said before, Guy McPherson is a nutcase. I am personally more worried about the IEA estimates, because 3.5C by 2035 is much worse than I thought. I don't think it was the IEA that predicted that, was it? Link?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
SnakePlissken posted:But that said, I think it just might smell real bad. I suspect that global warming, if it indeed causes drastic changes in the carbon makeup of the atmosphere over an extremely short time period, will likely cause a pretty dramatic increase in fungi and anaerobic bacteria both in the ocean, on land, and in our freshwater bodies. I've also read I think in this thread that there will become zones where it will become too hot for humans, as well as a number of other higher life forms, to survive without constant refrigeration. You really think that much biomass, all around the planet, is going to just vanish? It's gonna rot. I don't know how to tell you any more clearly that this is like 95% fantasy and has no scientific backing. We're not moving to a "permanently hot" phase. A third of living species aren't going to die off "at once". a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:I don't think it was the IEA that predicted that, was it? Link? There's this: http://www.iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:I don't think it was the IEA that predicted that, was it? Link? I guess it was news in 2010. Here's a link from 2011 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-false-economy/ quote:In the New Policies Scenario, world primary demand for energy increases by one-third between 2010 and 2035 and energy-related CO2 emissions increase by 20%, following a trajectory consistent with a long-term rise in the average global temperature in excess of 3.5°C. For fun, the fourth IPCC report projects that 40-70% of species could go extinct if earth warms by 3.5 °C. 
tmfool fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I don't know how to tell you any more clearly that this is like 95% fantasy and has no scientific backing. We're not moving to a "permanently hot" phase. A third of living species aren't going to die off "at once". Well, it appears you don't. I think by in ordinary discourse that may suggest you haven't got a valid point. Yes, in the terms of a human lifespan, the species won't be dying off "at once." And measured in dog years I'm over 200 already! They are dying off already. And you think the temperature changes are going to suddenly reverse themselves? It is going to be "permanently hot," how about that, and you're dead wrong. Prove I'm wrong without resorting to invective, fighting or flaming. Instead of telling me I'm living in a dream world, or telling me I'm too stupid to understand your superior brilliance, show me reality. Rejoin or  ED: Tried to use slightly less volatile language, and adjusted my age in dog years. SnakePlissken fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Also stumbled upon this while coming across that link from above. Curious to see what people have to say about this since, gently caress. I don't know.Artic News posted:While most efforts to contain global warming focus on ways to keep global temperature from rising with more than 2°C, a polynomial trendline already points at global temperature anomalies of 5°C by 2060. Even worse, a polynomial trend for the Arctic shows temperature anomalies of 4°C by 2020. http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/11/arctic-methane-impact.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:I don't think it was the IEA that predicted that, was it? Link? http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/Global-temperature-to-rise-3.5-degrees-C.-by-2035-International-Energy-Agency Edit: Wrong timestamp! The Nation article that references it is totally off on the date. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
All this talk about the impacts of climate change finally got me to go look for some resources on what some specific predictions are from a source that seems credible. I came across the section of the US EPA for Climate Change Impacts and Adapting to Change. Naturally it is US centric but they synthesize a lot of data into easy to read reports organized by region and sector, along with some global predictions. It is a good place to start looking for predicted impacts of climate change, particularly on different regions of the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
tmfool posted:Also stumbled upon this while coming across that link from above. Curious to see what people have to say about this since, gently caress. I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:38
|
|