Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.

Climate Myth...

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

 

"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist." (Gerhard Gerlich)

 

Skeptics sometimes claim that the explanation for global warming contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. But does it? To answer that, first, we need to know how global warming works. Then, we need to know what the second law of thermodynamics is, and how it applies to global warming. Global warming, in a nutshell, works like this:

The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer - like a blanket conserving body heat - and voila, you have global warming. See What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.

The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won't get hotter, and the cold thing won't get colder. That's so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn't boil!

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That's obvious too!

Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. And if someone tells you otherwise, just remember that you're a warm human being, and certainly nobody's dummy.

Basic rebuttal written by Tony Wildish


Update July 2015:

Here is the relevant lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

 


Update October 2017:

Here is a walk-through explanation of the Greenhouse Effect for bunnies, by none other than Eli, over at Rabbit Run.

Last updated on 7 October 2017 by skeptickev. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Related Arguments

Further reading

  • Most textbooks on climate or atmospheric physics describe the greenhouse effect, and you can easily find these in a university library. Some examples include:
  • The Greenhouse Effect, part of a module on "Cycles of the Earth and Atmosphere" provided for teachers by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).
  • What is the greenhouse effect?, part of a FAQ provided by the European Environment Agency.

References

Comments

Prev  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Comments 776 to 800 out of 1393:

  1. But Daniel, the thread has been instructive. Pretty much every kind of wiggle imaginable has been attempted. If anyone who has any doubt about GHGs and the 2nd law after reading the entirety of this thread, they should get some sleep and try it again in the morning. Or perhaps try a more thorough explanation of a pretty simple physical interaction.
    Response:

    [DB] Anyone with the willpower to read the entirety of this thread has a cast-iron stomach and a thing for pain. Maybe that's why I'm a mod. :)

    It should be painfully obvious by now that all that is being offered up are permutations of permutations (ad nauseum) of debunked and rebunked arguments.

  2. John and moderators, I agree. Despite DSL's point (valid to an extent), I can not see how allowing the same obfuscation again and again adds anything. Most readers who are unfamiliar with the physics would only take away the impression that this is a matter of debate and their perception of the whole process might be totally confused. Obfuscation is not useful to anyone.
  3. Philippe Chantreau "Most readers who are unfamiliar with the physics would only take away the impression that this is a matter of debate and their perception of the whole process might be totally confused. Obfuscation is not useful to anyone" Said otherwise: Quick kill the debate! Uncomfortable points of contention must not be seen! Back tomorrow, if this thread is still open.
    Response:

    [DB] Despite handwaving implications to the contrary, the existence and length of this thread is mute testimony to the tolerance of non-physical points of contention. On-topic comments constructed to comply with the Comments Policy go unmoderated, as the vast majority of readership here at Skeptical Science can attest.

    You have yet to demonstrate the physical-ness of your position, as other participants have pointed out to you several times.

  4. Nonsense and more obfuscation. Your accusation would be somewhat insulting if I cared the least about your opinion. If you want to debate atmospheric physics that are obvious to all researchers in the field, you should take it to the peer-reviewed litterature. I'll be very curious to see how your first paper looks like. What you are trying to argue about is no more a matter of debate than protein encoding by DNA. I have seen nothing of value for any kind of debate in the tediousness with which you have drowned this thread.
  5. Re 769 RW1damorbel (RE: 755), ""And why the 'GH' effect is not a radiation effect... from... GH gases." OK, then what is the primary mechanism for the greenhouse effect?" Since the GHE is an explained as a radiation effect t "No amount of refocussing ...... Or, in other words, increase the temperature of.... anything. That is what the 2nd law is all about." #Responding you say:- "The second law primarily states that heat can only flow from warm to cold - not the other way around." Yes However, you say also:- ".. the rate the incoming energy can leave the system from the surface is slower than the rate it is coming into the surface." Most GHE explanations say that this 'slowing' is because of a warming effect on the surface by radiation from GH gases in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is colder than the surface any radiation from it will not warm the surface because its photons do not have the energy to do this. What does happen is, photons from the surface, having more energy than photons in the upper atmosphere warm it, the heat thus transferred upwards is re-radiated (by GHGs) into deep space, keeping them cool. Do you agree? Then you write:- "The effect in principle is not much different than the interior of a car heating up inside on cold day from sitting out in the Sun. The Sun's energy is mostly transparent through the windows. It's then absorbed and re-radiated by the interior car components. The rate at which the energy is entering the interior is faster than the rate the re-radiated energy can leave the interior; therefore, the interior has to heat up." What you say doesn't just apply to a car, it is the same for a greenhouse or any surface exposed directly to the Sun's output. It's well known that, in a desert, the Sun can heat a surface well above 100C, enough to fry an egg. But even the arguments for the GH effect agree that it is the average temperature that is inportant, so they account for this by saying the Sun's output (the solar constant ) is not the measured 1370W/m^2 (@5780K if they include the temperature of the photons) but 342.5W/m^2 this latter would give an average temperature of about 279K, an average taken over the entire planet - summer and winter; pole to pole. Further you have:- "Ultimately, when the rate of energy entering something is faster than rate it can leave, the something has to heat up. That's the GHE." Couldn't agree more. Are you able to say at what temperature this would stop, if at all? The only beef I have with the arguments for the existance of the GHE is that it is not supported by well established thermal physics, like focussing photons increases their energy, simply not true. If it were true mirrors would change the colour of light when they reflect it; now that would be strange!
    Response:

    [DB] "The only beef I have with the arguments for the existance of the GHE is that it is not supported by well established thermal physics"

    Then you haven't been paying attention, clearly. Read the whole post, starting at the beginning. The comments too, if necessary.

  6. Re #780 it has :- "an average temperature of about 279K, an average taken over the entire planet - summer and winter; pole to pole." And of course, 'day and night'.
  7. Damorbel - still waiting to hear whether you accept that experiment is way to settle the debate. Sounds like you only want to talk, not find anything out.
  8. Re #782 scaddenp you wrote:- "still waiting to hear whether you accept that experiment is way to settle the debate." Not at all sure what experiment you have in mind. Care to describe it?
    Response: [DB] The question here, which you have conspicuously avoided answering for some time now, makes it clear that the experiment design to prove your alternative world of physics is up to you. We're still waiting.
  9. Re #783 damorbel - & Response: [DB] DB I am deeply dissappointed to have to write this, since my capabilities are definitely 'off topic' and it might be thought that some of the remarks in the cited link are 'ad hominem'. Your link has this :- "I didnt describe any experiment." You must forgive me, I was looking to you to describe an experiment to which I could agree. Next in the link it has:- I proposed that an experiment be designed such that normal understanding of physics and your understanding would calculate a different result." This of course doesn't mean I am abnormal. Then the link has:- "This is normal way to test scientific arguments." I'm afraid I do not quite understand what this means, does it also mean that I cannot achieve a scientific result? And:- "I asked if the experiment didn't go your way," As yet no experiment to 'go my way' Further in the link:- "whether you would be prepared to abandon your view and read the textbook. (ie, behave like a scientist) Interesting question. But I don't know which textbook I am suppose to read or whether it is a requirement for scientists to read text books. Personally I recommend original works, textbook contents are at least 2nd hand if not much more; at university my tutors always advised original texts, they had a low opinion of published textbooks. Finally:- "Got a yes/no? In fact, have you got an experiment that you think validates your views over mainstream physics?" I have set out clearly what the essence of how energy is transferred by means of photons and so far nobody has shown it to be incorrect.
    Response: [muoncounter] We've heard the one about textbooks before. No need recycling your old ideas when they didn't work first time around.
  10. LJ Ryan, I note that you continue to make nonsense claims about greenhouse gases being unable to redirect energy from a colder area to a warmer one while refusing to answer how a parabolic mirror does so. In short. You give every appearance of knowing that your argument is groundless and not even trying to defend it... save by obfuscating with trivialities; Like using a solar cooker to cool something. Which really applies the same principle in reverse. Infrared energy coming off the object inside the cooker is reflected away towards open space. Provided the cooker is insulated enough to limit IR coming in from other directions and the IR input from the area it is pointed towards is less than the IR being reflected away from the object you get a net cooling effect. This proves that energy can flow from warmer areas to cooler ones... just as using the cooker/parabolic mirror during the day proves that energy can also flow from cooler areas (the mirrored surface) to warmer areas (the heated object at the focal point). damorbel: I thought your arguments were too ridiculous to be actually believed back when you were just arguing things like 'the reflectivity of an object has no impact on its temperature' and 'electromagnetic waves can only travel from cold areas to warmer areas in large bandwidths'. Now that you've moved on to 'the greenhouse effect is caused by gravity' and the like we clearly live in universes too profoundly different to allow any sort of rational discussion.
  11. Damorbel @780, One last chance:
    Most GHE explanations say that this 'slowing' is because of a warming effect on the surface by radiation from GH gases in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is colder than the surface any radiation from it will not warm the surface because its photons do not have the energy to do this. What does happen is, photons from the surface, having more energy than photons in the upper atmosphere warm it, the heat thus transferred upwards is re-radiated (by GHGs) into deep space, keeping them cool. Do you agree?
    1) The Green House Gases in the atmosphere undoubtedly radiate in all directions as, a) this is the predicted behaviour in theory of radiation; and b) the radiation from those gases have been observed from space, and from high flying planes lookding down; and from the ground and from low flying planes looking up. An example of one such measurement is found in the intermediate version of the above article. So, as a matter of empirical fact, IR radiation is emitted by GHG in the downward direction. 2) The surface of the Earth has a very high emissivity and hence absorptivity in the wavelengths in which IR radiation is emitted by Green House Gases. This is shown very clearly (from observation) in post 703 by Alexander above. Note, the wavelength of peak emission by CO2 is 15 microns, with the "wings" of peak emission extending from 13 to 17 microns thus showing significant overlap with every type of surface shown, except coarse snow, which of course significantly overlaps with H2O emissions. Thus, over land, the vast majority of Downward Long Wave Radiation is absorbed by the surface, and at sea a significant proportion of it, in most cases the majority of it is absorbed. 3) If a photon is absorbed by a surface, the surface gains the energy that was contained in the photon (by conservation of energy). 4) If energy is absorbed by a surface, all else being equal, the temperature of the surface will rise, and the surface is warmed. 5) However, the surface of the Earth is typically warmer than the atmosphere, so it itself is radiating energy to the atmosphere, and is radiating more energy than it receives from the atmosphere. 6) Therefore, absent any other energy sources, the net effect of the interchange of photons between atmosphere and surface is that the surface cools and the atmosphere warms. 7) However, if the atmosphere was not there, or did not radiate IR radiation: (a) the total energy emitted by the surface would still be the same, because that energy is solely a function of its temperature and emissivity; but (b) the surface would receive less energy because it would not be absorbing photons emitted by the atmosphere. 8) Therefore, over a given period of time, and ignoring all other energy sources, the Earth will cool quicker without an atmosphere containing GHG than it will with one. 9) Of course, the Earth's surface is periodically warmed by a very bright energy source, the Sun. For most locations on Earth, the period it is warmed is for on average 12 hours out of every 24. 10) The amount of energy received from the Sun in any 24 hour period at any location is (to a first approximation) not a function of the temperature at that location. Therefore, the Earth at any location will be warmer if it cools less at night because it will add the Sun's energy received that day to a higher base level. 11) Therefore, because GHG slow cooling, they result in warmer temperatures on the surface of the Earth, not because they are by themselves capable of providing a net warming to the Earth, but because they slow the loss of the energy provided by the Sun. (12) This does not explain the equilibrium temperature of the Earth's surface, which is governed by the need for the Outgoing Infrared Radiation to balance the Incoming Short Wave Radiation, which balance is achieved by the interplay of upper tropospheric temperatures and surface temperatures brought about by the lapse rate and GHG concentrations. Each of (1) through (12) above is straight forward, blindingly obvious, and well confirmed by by being predicted by basic physical laws, and by being observed multiple times. Jointly, they refute your entire case. I am not entering into a discussion on this point out of deference to the moderators request that we not feed the trolls. However, laid out step by step like this, even you, Damorbel, should be able to see what absolute drivel you have been serving up.
  12. Damorbel: "Since the atmosphere is colder than the surface any radiation from it will not warm the surface because its photons do not have the energy to do this. What does happen is, photons from the surface, having more energy than photons in the upper atmosphere warm it, the heat thus transferred upwards is re-radiated (by GHGs) into deep space, keeping them cool. Do you agree?" So you're saying that the photons emitted by the atmosphere are only emitted away from the surface. No photon could possibly be emitted toward the surface, because the surface is warmer. Do you agree?
  13. Re #785 DB you wrote:- "This proves that energy can flow from warmer areas to cooler ones... " The basic 2nd Law. Further you wrote:- "just as using the cooker/parabolic mirror during the day proves that energy can also flow from cooler areas (the mirrored surface) to warmer areas (the heated object at the focal point)." When a mirror focusses the Suns image on the food you are saying... that the energy comes from the ....mirror? Ahem, CBD I think this is not right. Doesn't the energy come from the Sun and is just redirected by the mirror? A mirror is about as far from a black body as it is possible to get, it doesn't absorb radiation. A mirror's temperature is not changed by incident radiation because it is reflected without being absorbed; that is why a mirror is used to block radiation to and from a vacuum flask. Likewise mirrors do not emit radiation; you claim that heat (in a solar cooker) 'goes from the mirror' but the temperature of a mirror is not changed when the sun shines on it, only the food is cooked!
  14. Re #787 DSL you wrote:- "you're saying that the photons emitted by the atmosphere are only emitted away from the surface. " No, I didn't say that. The photons emitted downwards have lower energy than those at the surface so there is no warming of the surface, it is the emitting gases in the upper atmosphere that are warmed by by the (more energetic) photons emitted by the surface. And further you wrote:- "No photon could possibly be emitted toward the surface, because the surface is warmer. Do you agree?" No I don't agree. See the first answer.
  15. Damorbel: "No, I didn't say that. The photons emitted downwards have lower energy than those at the surface so there is no warming of the surface, it is the emitting gases in the upper atmosphere that are warmed by by the (more energetic) photons emitted by the surface." So the natural question, then, is "what happens to these lower-energy photons?" Are they or are they not absorbed by the surface? If not, what happens to them?
  16. Damorbel: "Doesn't the energy come from the Sun and is just redirected by the mirror?" Irrelevant gibber-gabber. The source of the radiation does not change its behavior, but even if it did... the energy being redirected by the greenhouse gases 'came from the Sun' too. The object at the focal point of the parabolic mirror is warmer than the air around it, which is in turn warmer than the mirror. Yet energy moves through space from the cold mirror to the warmer air to the warmer still object. This is exactly what you claim violates the 2nd (and/or 1st) law of thermodynamics when greenhouse gases do it. So how is this commonly observed phenomena possible? It violates what you claim to be a fundamental law of physics, but it is observed reality. Ergo... your claims about thermodynamic laws must be false.
  17. DSL 760 "The reflective surface focuses incoming radiation." --yes, solar radiation when cooking. "That radiation could be coming from the atmosphere." ---from the sun for cooking...that is how it works. If you point away from the sun the target COOLS below ambient temperature. "Your argument is that we can't differentiate between radiative transfer and conduction/convective transfer." ---I'm not sure what you mean. "In other words, why doesn't the solar cooker cool to near absolute zero when pointed at the open night sky?" ---It fact, it's temp. drops well below ambient. However the atmosphere, as you know, is not absolute zero. Thus potential drop is limited by atmos. temp. and the rate of drop is determined by delta T between cooker contents and the sky. If the atmosphere is same temp as the cooker no cooling occurs. If the atmosphere is warmer then the cooker, the contents warm.
  18. CBDunkerson 785 "LJ Ryan, I note that you continue to make nonsense claims about greenhouse gases being unable to redirect energy from a colder area to a warmer one while refusing to answer how a parabolic mirror does so." Where/when did I say this?
  19. Philippe Chantreau 772 "Considering that the body in question is continuously receiving energy at a more or less constant rate, it does not seem so difficult to imagine that its temperature will increase if the rate at which it can radiate that energy is decreased. In fact, I would have a hard time to understand if it did not warm up under these conditions. " Philippe, blackbody radiation is based upon a "constant rate". Adding more radiation of less magnitude does NOT change the output. Adding more radiation of the same magnitude does NOT change output. Adding more radiation of higher magnitude DOES change the output. Do you agree? Any interested readers should note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits.
  20. KR 773-775 A bit sleight of hand KR. Power input is also based on emissivity. Lower emissivity, higher reflectivity, thus less power input. Lower "fixed" input lower base temp i.e. lower then 255K. So GHG effect must account for more then 33K. Said differently, a body does not absorb one emissivity and radiate at another. Regarding the Alan Siddon post, neither he nor I believe earth is a blackbody. The gist of the post, blackbody represent max radiation input and max output. Regardless of reflection and re-radiation, max radiation output cannot be exceeded less higher energy input. Very simple concept, proven by years of actual data measurements. Do you agree?
  21. DB "You have yet to demonstrate the physical-ness of your position, as other participants have pointed out to you several times." Physical-ness of MY argument. Yet you proponents contradict one another when TRYING to explain the lack of "physical-ness" of my contentions. You press for answer on behalf of whom you agree. Yet chastise skeptics for re-posting question which remain unanswered.
  22. You can't formulate anything in a coherent fashion. You're the one evading my question with irrelevant gibberish. I am not talking about adding radiation of any magnitude, whatever that means. I am talking about a spherical blackbody receiving solar radiation at a constant rate in w/sq m, in the solar spectrum. If, by any means, that blackbody's ability to radiate energy out is impaired, what will happen to its temperature? About this: "it's temp. drops well below ambient" How does it square with this? "If the atmosphere is same temp as the cooker no cooling occurs." It drops below "ambient" but then if the temp is the same as the ambient atmosphere, no cooling occurs? More incoherence and more nonsense.
    Response: Let's end the sniping here, there is nothing constructive coming from it.
  23. LJ, Please clarify your statements where you say "Adding more radiation of the same magnitude does NOT change output". What precisely do you mean by "more" radiation of the same "magnitude"? By magnitude are you referring to the frequency of the radiation? Let's say we have an object in a vacuum absorbing one photon per second with a wavelength of 1um for all photons. If we increase the rate of incident energy to two photons per second, but they all remain at a wavelength of 1um, are you saying the amount of radiation emitted by the object does not change?
  24. LJR: "neither he nor I believe earth is a blackbody." Now that's a radical change of heart, as you specifically described earth's blackbody temperature here. And you've totally ignored the complete defenestration of your argument by KR (#773-775) and CBD (#785). As far as 'fundamental flaws' (#797), you haven't proven them; a reference to someone else's blog and 'google solar cooker' do not cut it as scientific source material.
  25. Me: "In other words, why doesn't the solar cooker cool to near absolute zero when pointed at the open night sky?" LJ Ryan: It fact, it's temp. drops well below ambient. However the atmosphere, as you know, is not absolute zero. Thus potential drop is limited by atmos. temp. and the rate of drop is determined by delta T between cooker contents and the sky. If the atmosphere is same temp as the cooker no cooling occurs. If the atmosphere is warmer then the cooker, the contents warm. Or, rather, if the cooker is radiating energy at the same rate that the atmosphere is radiating at it (removing conducted energy from the equation), then the cooker will remain at the same temperature. If the atmosphere is not adding radiated energy to the cooker, the cooker--if unable to shed via conduction (e.g., in a vacuum box)--will cool to near absolute zero when pointed at the night sky. But, of course, all atmospheric layers do radiate, and some of this radiation is absorbed by warmer surfaces and warmer atmospheric layers. Here's the key, though: the current temperature of any atmospheric layer or material within the system is that specific temperature because the atmosphere is already adding its radiated energy. The system is dynamic. if we take away the atmosphere, the surface eventually (quickly) reaches a lower equilibrium temperature. That the atmosphere doesn't heat the surface or warmer atmospheric layers is false. The heating is already taking place, and the result is the equilibrium temp. It's a mistake to think that this equilibrium temp is a baseline temp to which atmospheric energy is added. If we increase the radiative density of the atmosphere, the radiation has a greater chance of being redirected (in all directions). The maze is more complex, the pachinko machine has more pins, the dam is higher, etc. etc. The amount of available, usable energy in the lower layers increases because it's around longer in those layers. Do I have this right?

Prev  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us