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  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next

Comments 801 to 825 out of 1393:

  1. To moderator: OK, the trolling has indeed gone on long enough. Sorry for adding to it.
  2. LJR #793: So now you are disavowing your own prior arguments? Or wasn't it you who wrote; #715: "Low temperature, (lower energy) atmosphere adding radiative heat to the warmer surface is a violation of the 2nd law." #758: "See this process (unlike the magic box) abides the 2nd law, Hot to Cold." #765: "So regardless of re-radiation and reflection, the atmosphere can NOT warm the warmer Earth...Period." You have said all these things. Right there in the thread history. Yet now you deny it to avoid answering my challenge; "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." How does the observed reality that EM radiation travels from the surface of a parabolic mirror to the hotter object at the mirror's focal point not disprove your various statements quoted above?
  3. Re 786 Tom Curtis,point by point 1/ Yes 2/Not relevant. - The spectrum of samples plays no part in heat balsnce (Gustav Kirchhoff 1862 'Ueber das Verhälteniß zwischen dem Emissionensvermögen der Körper für Wärme und Licht'. 3/"If a photon is absorbed by a surface, the surface gains the energy that was contained in the photon (by conservation of energy)". - This would only be true if the surface were at 0K i.e. it is not itself radiating. 4/"If energy is absorbed by a surface, all else being equal, the temperature of the surface will rise, and the surface is warmed. - See 3 above. 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." - Very far from clear. Two surfaces close to each other can both be radiating very strongly but without energy transfer. Energy is only transferred if there is some difference in temperature. 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." - Yes. (But see 5/) 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." - Regards (a)'Energy' is not emitted (see the answer at 5/) - Regards (b)The surface does not get energy from the atmosphere.(see 5/.) 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." - This is very different. Now you are talking about 'The Rate of Cooling (Heating). The question of cooling (heating) rate is entirely a function of the albedo (if you take the 'rate' as a % of the temperature). The rate of temperature change (by radiation only) of any body is strongly dependent on its reflectivity, whether it has an atmosphere or not. If a body has a highly reflective surface it means there is very little material to either emit or absorb radiation, so heat transfer is minimal. 9/ -----> end. - No comment.
  4. L.J. Ryan - "Do you agree?" No. The theoretic black body work (including Kirchoff) is based upon a "white light" excitation, equal across all frequencies, absorption and emission by the black body based upon the absorption/emission spectra. The climate, on the other hand, is driven by a band-limited solar input which does not match the thermal emissive spectra, is not greatly affected by greenhouse gases, and hence represents a fixed input, not a match to the thermal spectra at all. And, as I stated earlier, given a fixed input power, and a need to radiate that (or change internal energy and hence temperature), emissivity and temperature have an inverse relationship. As effective emissivity of the planet goes down, temperature goes up. Asserting that the Earth follows "white light" illumination with interdependent absorption/emission is a complete mistake. It's a fixed input power outside the GHG affected thermal spectra, which is sufficient to radiate the incoming 240 W/m^2. And the black body temperature required to radiate that power is a lower limit on the temperature of a gray body of lesser emissivity.
  5. damorbel Please clarify the point you made here: "If a photon is absorbed by a surface, the surface gains the energy that was contained in the photon (by conservation of energy)". - This would only be true if the surface were at 0K i.e. it is not itself radiating." The question does not ask whether the energy absorption is balanced out by emissions, just whether an absorbed photon leads to an energy gain. Are you saying that it does not for an object above 0K? If not, what happens to the energy of the photon? Where did it go? As for how the energy is emitted, keep in mind the Stefan-Boltzman Law. The amount of energy radiated is dependent on the temperature of the material, not whether it has absorbed an extra photon recently. That means if the surface is constantly emitting and absorbing photons, and we increase the number of photons being absorbed, the only way for the surface to emit that extra energy is to get warmer. Do you agree with this? If not, what happens to the energy? How can the extra energy be emitted without the object getting warmer (again keeping in mind Stefan-Boltzmann)? If it isn't emitted, and it doesn't raise the temperature, what happens to this energy?
  6. e, damorbel is consistently and repeatedly avoiding the question as to whether he will even philosophically accept the idea of an experiment as the way to settle a question. (asked here. This to me implies someone only interested in arguing with no intent to resolve anything, perhaps even a paid troll; or someone who prefers a faith-based position. I suggest there is no point discussing with him at all.
  7. Philippe Chantreau 797 "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?" As long as the emissivity remains constant, i.e. remains a blackbody, the temperature remains unchanged. Got it Philippe. The spherical blackbody temperature will remain the same.
  8. LJR: "As long as the emissivity remains constant, i.e. remains a blackbody, the temperature remains unchanged." So let's stop talking about theoreticals; what happens when the emissivity of a real planet decreases? By your statement, if solar input remains the same and emissivity decreases, temperature must increase. Or do you now wish to change that as well?
  9. muoncounter 799 "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)." If you did not understand the context, sorry. Earth blackbody temperature, is a generally (I think) accepted naming convention for earths blackbody temperature equivalent.
  10. muoncounter 808 "So let's stop talking about theoreticals; what happens when the emissivity of a real planet decreases?" If emissivity decreases, the "real planet" will absorb less solar flux. "By your statement, if solar input remains the same and emissivity decreases, temperature must increase." Input would not remain the same (see above). Lower input results in a lower temp. NOT an increase.
  11. L.J. Ryan - "If emissivity decreases, the "real planet" will absorb less solar flux. " Incorrect - please read my post here, and recognize that input power is not affected by the greenhouse gases and their resulting IR emissivity. You have so far ignored my post. The real world climate receives band-limited solar energy unaffected by IR emissivity, hence a fixed input power. Output power (which must, at dynamic equilibrium, match input power) is determined by IR emissivity and the dependent variable, temperature. Please respond or acknowledge.
  12. KR 811 Without addressing the specifics of your post 804, which I will get later this evening or tomorrow, muoncounter 808 made no reference "IR emissivity". Therefore, I stand by 810.
    Response: [muoncounter] Note the use of the words 'real planet;' this is specifically about solar input and how a planet with a greenhouse atmosphere responds. Don't bother replying if you are going to haggle over this nonsense; especially since you claim the right to define 'blackbody' however it suits you.
  13. DSL 800 "Do I have this right?" I'm not sure I understand your entire concept. "But, of course, all atmospheric layers do radiate, and some of this radiation is absorbed by warmer surfaces and warmer atmospheric layers."---To what end. The warmer layers/surface does not get warmer do to this absorption. "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. "---Again, I'm not sure I understand...but the lower temperature atmosphere can not increase the temp. of warmer surface. I don't agree with core of your last paragraph. Lower temp IR can not increase the temp. of a warmer surface.
  14. CBDunkerson 802 "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." NONE of the listed post in 802 do I say "unable to redirect energy from a colder area to a warmer". What I do say: lower temp IR can not increase the temp of a warmer surface. You said: "How does the observed reality that EM radiation travels from the surface of a parabolic mirror to the hotter object at the mirror's focal point not disprove your various statements quoted above?" EM Radiation is reflected, not absorbed and re-radiated, therefore the dish temp is irrelevant.
  15. Re 805 e you write:- "The question does not ask whether the energy absorption is balanced out by emissions, just whether an absorbed photon leads to an energy gain." It takes time, I agree not very much, to absorb a photon, in this time only a body at 0K will not emit a photon. Perhaps it seems trivial to consider individual photons, infinitesimal time periods etc., these are normally handled at macro level by statistics but the bottom line is what happens at the individual photon, particle etc. You wrote further:- "As for how the energy is emitted, keep in mind the Stefan-Boltzman Law. The amount of energy radiated is dependent on the temperature of the material, not whether it has absorbed an extra photon recently" The S-B law is about power (W/m^2) not energy; the energy absorbed can only be found by integrating the power WRT time, during which a body above 0K is also emitting (power) according to S-B law. The equilibrium temperature is where the emitted power equals the absorbed power. It is worth noting that the equilibrium temperature requires only a power balance. A black body is the most efficient emitter but if the body is not black e.g. coloured, a gas or with a refractive index >1 etc., then its emissivity is less than 1. and will not emit so much power at a given temperature; conversley if the emissivity <1 a body will be hotter than a black body, this is why it is a great mistake to assume the Earth 'radiates like a black body'.
  16. LJR #814: So, your latest nonsensical dodge is that EM radiation behaves differently if it has been absorbed and re-emitted than if it 'travels directly' and/or is reflected? Ignoring the ridiculousness of that claim for the moment; How does the EMR emitted by a remote control travel from the couch to the warmer receiver in the heat generating electronic equipment it controls? How does the EMR emitted by a microwave oven travel from the cold walls of the oven to the warmer food being cooked? How does the EMR carrying radio and television broadcasts travel from the transmitter to warmer locations around it - rather than radio and television being routinely interrupted by minor local temperature variations? Heck, how does the EMR of 'sunlight' travel from the cold of space to the warmer upper atmosphere to the warmer still lower atmosphere? By your claims we should all live in perpetual darkness because sunlight cannot approach the warmer surface of the Earth. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say that energy can not flow from cold to hot (regardless of whether it has been absorbed and re-emitted somewhere along the way). That is a ridiculous lie which violates thousands of observations from everyday life. What the 2nd law of thermodynamics actually says (in this context) is that the net flow of energy between objects in a closed system will always be from cold to hot... that is, energy flows from the cold objects to the hot ones and vice versa, but since the hot objects are giving off more energy than they receive the net flow is from hot to cold. BTW, your version of events violates the 1st law of thermodynamics... energy can neither be created nor destroyed. You argue that 'colder EM radiation' (setting aside that radiation has no temperature) cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface... so what happens to it? You've got energy hitting a surface and not making if warmer. It simply ceases to exist. Violating the first law of thermodynamics.
  17. Re #784 Re:- "Response: [muoncounter] We've heard the one about textbooks before. No need recycling your old ideas when they didn't work first time around" I have never raised the matter of text books, it would not occur to me to do so. It has been raised multiple times by other contributors and they received no warning about it I have responded about the reliability of text books. Are there matters to which I may not respond? I do appreciate the work done by mods.
    Response: [muoncounter] Perhaps you should have checked the link in my response to #784. Unless you are a different damorbel, you gave us the parable of your disdain for textbooks some months ago. Do try to keep track of your own words; they are there for all to see.
  18. Following damorbel's logic @815, I can never pay of my debt to the bank. After all, it takes time to complete a transaction, and during the time, the Bank will make many transactions in which they credit other accounts. Therefore, if I make a payment on the debt, they will never have received it, for in the time it takes for them to receive it, a larger amount will have been paid out by them. Therefore, they should be under no obligation to credit my account with the amount paid. If that sounds like casuistry, it is only because the argument mirrors damorbel's. Transparently for those not inclined to casuistry, if in damorbel's book keeping, the energy of the incoming photon is immediately credited to the outgoing radiation, then the amount of energy lost by the absorbing body is reduced by the amount of energy gained from incoming photons. Because less energy is lost, the body will therefore have more energy (and hence be warmer) than an equivalent body that started at the same temperature and emissivity but did not have the incoming radiation. In fact, damorbel is really trying to run two sets of books here, and hoping that we do not notice. In one set of books he credits the incoming energy to the simultaneous outgoing radiation so that he does not have to account for the absorbed energy in discussing the temperature change of the absorbing body. In the second set of books he debits all outgoing energy from the emitting body. Only by keeping both books separate can he pretend that a cool body interacting with a warm body can change the equilibrium temperature, ie, the temperature at which incoming energy matches outgoing energy, for that warm body.
  19. Re #785 CBD you wrote:- "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." The absorption of radiation and re-emitting is not what is meant by 'redirect(ion)'. Redirection is what a mirror does, it does not change the wavelength (colour) of the (redirected) radiation; the energy is not absorbed by a mirror (or any other reflective process e.g. scattering, as with fog.) thus the temperature of the mirror is not changed. The converse is also true, the redirection of light by a mirror is, at first order, independent of the temperature of the mirror - a hot mirror works much the same as a cold one.
  20. Re #804 CBD you wrote:- "The theoretic black body work (including Kirchoff) is based upon a "white light" excitation, equal across all frequencies, absorption and emission by the black body based upon the absorption/emission spectra." Arguing Kirchhoff's contribution was confined to 'black bodies' is not correct. Kirchhoff was the first to consider 'arbitrary' bodies, ones that reflect, refract, are (partially) transparent etc., e.g. mirrors, coloured bodies, gases etc., thus all radiation, including that with a narrow spectral range. Subsequent developments in atomic and quantum theory have not invalidated his work, which would have been rather unlikely because his work was the inspiration for it!
  21. Re #816 CBDunkerson you wrote:- 1/"How does the EMR emitted by a remote control travel from the couch to the warmer receiver in the heat generating electronic equipment it controls?" - Remote controls emit high brightness narrow band IR that is focussed; the detector at the receiver can distinguish the RC bright spot against yhe background radiation coming fron your cup of tea and othe objects near you. Also the detectot has a filter to pass only the narrow band radiation emitted by the RC so that the effect of broadband (thermal) IR from your tea cup, the room etc., is reduced. 2/"How does the EMR emitted by a microwave oven travel from the cold walls of the oven to the warmer food being cooked?" - The microwave energy is repeatedly reflected by the walls until, sooner or later, it encounters the food to be cooked, where it is (mostly) absorbed. If there is no food in the oven the microwave energy builds up (there are warnings not to run the thing at full power when it's empty) and you will damage the device, possibly bustin the magnetron. 3/ "How does the EMR carrying radio and television broadcasts travel from the transmitter to warmer locations around it - rather than radio and television being routinely interrupted by minor local temperature variations?" - Same as 1/, except the transmitter is not focussed (much). 4/ "Heck, how does the EMR of 'sunlight' travel from the cold of space to the warmer upper atmosphere to the warmer still lower atmosphere? By your claims we should all live in perpetual darkness because sunlight cannot approach the warmer surface of the Earth." - The Sun is at about 5780K and that has the spectrum we see (well, our eyes do not see the infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) but it is stil there). The Sun occupies only a small part of the sky so we do not get a the full 5780K here, only 279K. But sunlight still behaves with some of the properties of a 5780K source, it ionises O2 in the stratosphere to make ozone and it tans your skin, burning it if you are not careful. For the rest - no comment.
  22. Re #818 Tom Curtis you wrote:- "Following damorbel's logic @815" - no comment.
  23. LJR, by definition, if the ability to radiate is decreased, the emissivity does change and the blackbody becomes grey. How else can it possibly manifest? It has been pointed to you earlier that this is exactly what the atmosphere does. And what was this thing again with the cooker cooler below ambient but in fact staying at the same temperature as the air? This is a waste of time.
  24. damorbel #819: We already covered this nonsense... you claim EM radiation behaves differently when reflected than it does when absorbed and re-emitted. Again, irrelevant even if it weren't completely false. Real world examples of each; Photographer taking a picture of a 'penguins on ice' exhibit in a zoo. The ice is colder than the mirror in the camera and the film yet the image is carried by the EM radiation from cold to hot. The ice does not 'disappear' from the picture. EMR flowing from a cooler object to a warmer one while being reflected along the way. Two identical pots of water on an electric stove. Heat them both to the maximum temperature of the stove for an extended period and then turn one off while putting the other at half heat. If energy were unable to travel from cold to hot then the pot which was warmed up to the maximum heat could not absorb and re-emit heat from the now half as hot burner and would therefor cool down at exactly the same rate as the pot whose burner was turned off (until it reached half heat and stopped cooling). Yet this does not happen. The pot with half heat cools down slower / remains boiling much longer than the pot with no heat... because even though it is (initially) hotter than the burner it is still receiving additional heat... heat flowing from a cooler object to a warmer one by absorption and re-emission. One example involves reflection, the other absorption and re-emission. Yet both show energy flowing to a cooler area from a warmer one. Ergo, the reflection vs absorption and re-emission distinction you keep making is meaningless. It is observed reality that energy can and does flow from cold to hot in either case. Your arguments continue to be complete nonsense... and you continue to avoid any attempt to address the countless real world examples proving that. damorbel #820: You attribute a quotation from message #804 to me. It was actually written by KR.
  25. damorbel #821: "Remote controls emit high brightness narrow band IR that is focussed; the detector at the receiver can distinguish the RC bright spot against yhe background radiation coming fron your cup of tea and othe objects near you." The question isn't how the receiver distinguishes the signal from the remote from ambient energy (which you get completely wrong BTW). It is how it receives the signal at all if, as you claim, energy cannot flow from the cold remote to the warmer receiver. "The microwave energy is repeatedly reflected by the walls until, sooner or later, it encounters the food to be cooked, where it is (mostly) absorbed." But how? Are you amending the 2nd law of thermo-ridiculousness to; Energy cannot flow from cold to hot unless it is repeatedly reflected first? Still doesn't explain the remote control. "Same as 1/, except the transmitter is not focussed (much)." The IR remote isn't focused much either... which is why you can bounce the signal off a wall behind you and still have it work on the television (or whatever) in front of you. However, that still doesn't explain how either travels from cold to hot. "But sunlight still behaves with some of the properties of a 5780K source, it ionises O2 in the stratosphere to make ozone and it tans your skin, burning it if you are not careful." So now you are claiming that only the temperature of the 'origin point' of the EMR matters... it can go through cooler and warmer areas so long as none is warmer than the origin point. Yet the remote, microwave, and radio examples all show EMR traveling to areas warmer than their origin points.

Prev  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  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