Climate change and Nationalism Surge
10 Apr 2018, 9:23 am
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Very funny. 540 million years? Who was doing selective breeding back then? It certainly wasn't humans because humans did not exist until well into the current ice age. Our first steps at farming was about nine or ten thousand years ago but it took a while for them to develop selective breeding.
As for GMOs, I know a lot of farmers, only one of which is opposed to GMOs and he is generally regarded as being extremely quirky (and that's putting it nicely). I do know a few private gardeners who are very anti-GMO, though.
Nature itself is selective breeding. Animal species selectively look to breed with the fittest members of their species. Just because a human hand isn't involved doesn't mean selective breeding hasn't happened-- it's the very driver of evolution.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,472
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 9:36 am
Aristophanes wrote:
Sorry, I can't really reply because every link I post I get blocked by WP.
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
kokopelli wrote:
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
As long as we are in this ice age, conditions are not going to return to that of the Devonian period. Ice ages tend to be events that last for a very long time like in the tens or hundreds of million years. We've only been in this ice age for about 2.6 million years.
We are probably close to peak oil and peak coal. These days, the fields being discovered seem to be pretty limited. We don't have enough fossil fuels available to release enough CO2 or other greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the fuel we use is increasingly cleaner.
It is clear that we cannot continue to use fossil fuels for all that long. Within a hundred years or so, fossil fuels will likely be playing out. It will take time but the CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced. It would be surprising if the CO2 in the atmosphere a thousand years from now is as high as it is now.
So the potential for temperature increases is relatively limited.
The danger is cooling. The last interglacial warm period, the Eemian, was a few degrees warmer than our current interglacial warm period, the Holocene. After approximately 15,000 years of warm climate, the Eemian ended. If that is anything to go by, the Holocene could easily end in a couple of thousand years. Some alarmists claim that the warming will extend this warm period, but I find no reason to believe those claims.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,472
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 9:41 am
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Very funny. 540 million years? Who was doing selective breeding back then? It certainly wasn't humans because humans did not exist until well into the current ice age. Our first steps at farming was about nine or ten thousand years ago but it took a while for them to develop selective breeding.
As for GMOs, I know a lot of farmers, only one of which is opposed to GMOs and he is generally regarded as being extremely quirky (and that's putting it nicely). I do know a few private gardeners who are very anti-GMO, though.
Nature itself is selective breeding. Animal species selectively look to breed with the fittest members of their species. Just because a human hand isn't involved doesn't mean selective breeding hasn't happened-- it's the very driver of evolution.
Selective breeding involves the selection of parents with a goal to produce offspring with specific traits. Animals and plants do not have a goal of producing offspring with any particular traits.
With selective breeding of animals, a human chooses which to breed with each other, not the animals, and it is done specifically to enhance traits the human finds desirable, not the animals.
10 Apr 2018, 9:55 am
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Sorry, I can't really reply because every link I post I get blocked by WP.
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
kokopelli wrote:
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
As long as we are in this ice age, conditions are not going to return to that of the Devonian period. Ice ages tend to be events that last for a very long time like in the tens or hundreds of million years. We've only been in this ice age for about 2.6 million years.
We are probably close to peak oil and peak coal. These days, the fields being discovered seem to be pretty limited. We don't have enough fossil fuels available to release enough CO2 or other greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the fuel we use is increasingly cleaner.
It is clear that we cannot continue to use fossil fuels for all that long. Within a hundred years or so, fossil fuels will likely be playing out. It will take time but the CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced. It would be surprising if the CO2 in the atmosphere a thousand years from now is as high as it is now.
So the potential for temperature increases is relatively limited.
The danger is cooling. The last interglacial warm period, the Eemian, was a few degrees warmer than our current interglacial warm period, the Holocene. After approximately 15,000 years of warm climate, the Eemian ended. If that is anything to go by, the Holocene could easily end in a couple of thousand years. Some alarmists claim that the warming will extend this warm period, but I find no reason to believe those claims.
By 'alarmist' I'll assume you mean people working with the actual data, since they're the ones making the claims. 2nd, you're talking about positive feedback, which isn't just theoretical, it's a proof in mathematics, and can be seen in everything from sound to the way blood clots, and is evidenced by you and I using electronics to communicate since it's electrical feedback that changes a bit from 0 to 1. 3rd, the Devonian's temperature dropped because the carbon in the atmosphere was absorbed by the first terrestrial plants, which acted as a carbon sink. That carbon is still here on earth, in those plants, which over time have turned into coal, which we are burning and thus pumping back into the atmosphere which in turn is causing the temperature to rise again.
10 Apr 2018, 9:58 am
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Very funny. 540 million years? Who was doing selective breeding back then? It certainly wasn't humans because humans did not exist until well into the current ice age. Our first steps at farming was about nine or ten thousand years ago but it took a while for them to develop selective breeding.
As for GMOs, I know a lot of farmers, only one of which is opposed to GMOs and he is generally regarded as being extremely quirky (and that's putting it nicely). I do know a few private gardeners who are very anti-GMO, though.
Nature itself is selective breeding. Animal species selectively look to breed with the fittest members of their species. Just because a human hand isn't involved doesn't mean selective breeding hasn't happened-- it's the very driver of evolution.
Selective breeding involves the selection of parents with a goal to produce offspring with specific traits. Animals and plants do not have a goal of producing offspring with any particular traits.
With selective breeding of animals, a human chooses which to breed with each other, not the animals, and it is done specifically to enhance traits the human finds desirable, not the animals.
Animals do indeed attempt to produce specific traits-- those they view as fit. If you take the human-centric attitude out of the equation you'll see that evolution has always worked that way.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,472
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 10:16 am
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Sorry, I can't really reply because every link I post I get blocked by WP.
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
kokopelli wrote:
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
As long as we are in this ice age, conditions are not going to return to that of the Devonian period. Ice ages tend to be events that last for a very long time like in the tens or hundreds of million years. We've only been in this ice age for about 2.6 million years.
We are probably close to peak oil and peak coal. These days, the fields being discovered seem to be pretty limited. We don't have enough fossil fuels available to release enough CO2 or other greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the fuel we use is increasingly cleaner.
It is clear that we cannot continue to use fossil fuels for all that long. Within a hundred years or so, fossil fuels will likely be playing out. It will take time but the CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced. It would be surprising if the CO2 in the atmosphere a thousand years from now is as high as it is now.
So the potential for temperature increases is relatively limited.
The danger is cooling. The last interglacial warm period, the Eemian, was a few degrees warmer than our current interglacial warm period, the Holocene. After approximately 15,000 years of warm climate, the Eemian ended. If that is anything to go by, the Holocene could easily end in a couple of thousand years. Some alarmists claim that the warming will extend this warm period, but I find no reason to believe those claims.
By 'alarmist' I'll assume you mean people working with the actual data, since they're the ones making the claims. 2nd, you're talking about positive feedback, which isn't just theoretical, it's a proof in mathematics, and can be seen in everything from sound to the way blood clots, and is evidenced by you and I using electronics to communicate since it's electrical feedback that changes a bit from 0 to 1. 3rd, the Devonian's temperature dropped because the carbon in the atmosphere was absorbed by the first terrestrial plants, which acted as a carbon sink. That carbon is still here on earth, in those plants, which over time have turned into coal, which we are burning and thus pumping back into the atmosphere which in turn is causing the temperature to rise again.
From what I understand, many climate researchers agree that warming is better, at least up to some point. There is some difference about what that point is. It's true that some climate researchers are foolish alarmists (such as the twit who claimed that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035), but most of the alarmism is from politicians and the general public.
I don't think that positive feedback changes a bit from 0 to 1, but it does help the charge settle on one value or the other.
We do not have enough carbon in the world in a form that can readily be released into an atmosphere to warm the planet up enough to be dangerous. I've encountered plenty of non-scientific alarmists who are convinced that global warming will spiral out of control and we will end up like Venus, but that simply cannot happen.
What positive feedback we may see is limited as is the negative feedback that we will also see. An example of negative feedback could be that increased moisture in the air may lead to increased cloud cover reflecting more sunlight back into space and thus reducing the amount of warming.
By the way, if you really want to cut down on fossil fuels, what do you think about nuclear power? It strikes me as very hypocritical of many of the climate alarmists that they want to reduce the use of fossil fuels without replacing it with any realistic source of energy as an alternate. Solar panels and wind generators look good to the uninformed, but they are strictly limited in their usefulness.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,472
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 10:20 am
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Very funny. 540 million years? Who was doing selective breeding back then? It certainly wasn't humans because humans did not exist until well into the current ice age. Our first steps at farming was about nine or ten thousand years ago but it took a while for them to develop selective breeding.
As for GMOs, I know a lot of farmers, only one of which is opposed to GMOs and he is generally regarded as being extremely quirky (and that's putting it nicely). I do know a few private gardeners who are very anti-GMO, though.
Nature itself is selective breeding. Animal species selectively look to breed with the fittest members of their species. Just because a human hand isn't involved doesn't mean selective breeding hasn't happened-- it's the very driver of evolution.
Selective breeding involves the selection of parents with a goal to produce offspring with specific traits. Animals and plants do not have a goal of producing offspring with any particular traits.
With selective breeding of animals, a human chooses which to breed with each other, not the animals, and it is done specifically to enhance traits the human finds desirable, not the animals.
Animals do indeed attempt to produce specific traits-- those they view as fit. If you take the human-centric attitude out of the equation you'll see that evolution has always worked that way.
Do you really think that an animal thinks something like, "If I breed with that male, maybe my offspring will be bigger and stronger"?
Evolution is not about selective breeding. It is about what traits are of use for members of a species to reach an age where they can breed and then breed to produce offspring. There is no indication whatever that they think at all about what kind of offspring they want. They just breed with what they see as an acceptable member of the opposite species.
10 Apr 2018, 10:26 am
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Sorry, I can't really reply because every link I post I get blocked by WP.
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
kokopelli wrote:
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
As long as we are in this ice age, conditions are not going to return to that of the Devonian period. Ice ages tend to be events that last for a very long time like in the tens or hundreds of million years. We've only been in this ice age for about 2.6 million years.
We are probably close to peak oil and peak coal. These days, the fields being discovered seem to be pretty limited. We don't have enough fossil fuels available to release enough CO2 or other greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the fuel we use is increasingly cleaner.
It is clear that we cannot continue to use fossil fuels for all that long. Within a hundred years or so, fossil fuels will likely be playing out. It will take time but the CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced. It would be surprising if the CO2 in the atmosphere a thousand years from now is as high as it is now.
So the potential for temperature increases is relatively limited.
The danger is cooling. The last interglacial warm period, the Eemian, was a few degrees warmer than our current interglacial warm period, the Holocene. After approximately 15,000 years of warm climate, the Eemian ended. If that is anything to go by, the Holocene could easily end in a couple of thousand years. Some alarmists claim that the warming will extend this warm period, but I find no reason to believe those claims.
By 'alarmist' I'll assume you mean people working with the actual data, since they're the ones making the claims. 2nd, you're talking about positive feedback, which isn't just theoretical, it's a proof in mathematics, and can be seen in everything from sound to the way blood clots, and is evidenced by you and I using electronics to communicate since it's electrical feedback that changes a bit from 0 to 1. 3rd, the Devonian's temperature dropped because the carbon in the atmosphere was absorbed by the first terrestrial plants, which acted as a carbon sink. That carbon is still here on earth, in those plants, which over time have turned into coal, which we are burning and thus pumping back into the atmosphere which in turn is causing the temperature to rise again.
From what I understand, many climate researchers agree that warming is better, at least up to some point. There is some difference about what that point is. It's true that some climate researchers are foolish alarmists (such as the twit who claimed that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035), but most of the alarmism is from politicians and the general public.
I don't think that positive feedback changes a bit from 0 to 1, but it does help the charge settle on one value or the other.
We do not have enough carbon in the world in a form that can readily be released into an atmosphere to warm the planet up enough to be dangerous. I've encountered plenty of non-scientific alarmists who are convinced that global warming will spiral out of control and we will end up like Venus, but that simply cannot happen.
What positive feedback we may see is limited as is the negative feedback that we will also see. An example of negative feedback could be that increased moisture in the air may lead to increased cloud cover reflecting more sunlight back into space and thus reducing the amount of warming.
By the way, if you really want to cut down on fossil fuels, what do you think about nuclear power? It strikes me as very hypocritical of many of the climate alarmists that they want to reduce the use of fossil fuels without replacing it with any realistic source of energy as an alternate. Solar panels and wind generators look good to the uninformed, but they are strictly limited in their usefulness.
I only have time to reply to one point, so I choose digital electronics:
Positive feedback in digital electronics
Quote:
Digital electronic circuits are sometimes designed to benefit from positive feedback. Normal logic gates usually rely simply on gain to push digital signal voltages away from intermediate values to the values that are meant to represent boolean '0' and '1'. When an input voltage is expected to vary in an analogue way, but sharp thresholds are required for later digital processing, the Schmitt trigger circuit uses positive feedback to ensure that if the input voltage creeps gently above the threshold, the output is forced smartly and rapidly from one logic state to the other. One of the corollaries of the Schmitt trigger's use of positive feedback is that, should the input voltage move gently down again past the same threshold, the positive feedback will hold the output in the same state with no change. This effect is called hysteresis: the input voltage has to drop past a different, lower threshold to 'un-latch' the output and reset it to its original digital value. By reducing the extent of the positive feedback, the hysteresis-width can be reduced, but it can not entirely be eradicated. The Schmitt trigger is, to some extent, a latching circuit.[18]
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,472
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 11:36 am
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Sorry, I can't really reply because every link I post I get blocked by WP.
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
kokopelli wrote:
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
As long as we are in this ice age, conditions are not going to return to that of the Devonian period. Ice ages tend to be events that last for a very long time like in the tens or hundreds of million years. We've only been in this ice age for about 2.6 million years.
We are probably close to peak oil and peak coal. These days, the fields being discovered seem to be pretty limited. We don't have enough fossil fuels available to release enough CO2 or other greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the fuel we use is increasingly cleaner.
It is clear that we cannot continue to use fossil fuels for all that long. Within a hundred years or so, fossil fuels will likely be playing out. It will take time but the CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced. It would be surprising if the CO2 in the atmosphere a thousand years from now is as high as it is now.
So the potential for temperature increases is relatively limited.
The danger is cooling. The last interglacial warm period, the Eemian, was a few degrees warmer than our current interglacial warm period, the Holocene. After approximately 15,000 years of warm climate, the Eemian ended. If that is anything to go by, the Holocene could easily end in a couple of thousand years. Some alarmists claim that the warming will extend this warm period, but I find no reason to believe those claims.
By 'alarmist' I'll assume you mean people working with the actual data, since they're the ones making the claims. 2nd, you're talking about positive feedback, which isn't just theoretical, it's a proof in mathematics, and can be seen in everything from sound to the way blood clots, and is evidenced by you and I using electronics to communicate since it's electrical feedback that changes a bit from 0 to 1. 3rd, the Devonian's temperature dropped because the carbon in the atmosphere was absorbed by the first terrestrial plants, which acted as a carbon sink. That carbon is still here on earth, in those plants, which over time have turned into coal, which we are burning and thus pumping back into the atmosphere which in turn is causing the temperature to rise again.
From what I understand, many climate researchers agree that warming is better, at least up to some point. There is some difference about what that point is. It's true that some climate researchers are foolish alarmists (such as the twit who claimed that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035), but most of the alarmism is from politicians and the general public.
I don't think that positive feedback changes a bit from 0 to 1, but it does help the charge settle on one value or the other.
We do not have enough carbon in the world in a form that can readily be released into an atmosphere to warm the planet up enough to be dangerous. I've encountered plenty of non-scientific alarmists who are convinced that global warming will spiral out of control and we will end up like Venus, but that simply cannot happen.
What positive feedback we may see is limited as is the negative feedback that we will also see. An example of negative feedback could be that increased moisture in the air may lead to increased cloud cover reflecting more sunlight back into space and thus reducing the amount of warming.
By the way, if you really want to cut down on fossil fuels, what do you think about nuclear power? It strikes me as very hypocritical of many of the climate alarmists that they want to reduce the use of fossil fuels without replacing it with any realistic source of energy as an alternate. Solar panels and wind generators look good to the uninformed, but they are strictly limited in their usefulness.
I only have time to reply to one point, so I choose digital electronics:
Positive feedback in digital electronics
Quote:
Digital electronic circuits are sometimes designed to benefit from positive feedback. Normal logic gates usually rely simply on gain to push digital signal voltages away from intermediate values to the values that are meant to represent boolean '0' and '1'. When an input voltage is expected to vary in an analogue way, but sharp thresholds are required for later digital processing, the Schmitt trigger circuit uses positive feedback to ensure that if the input voltage creeps gently above the threshold, the output is forced smartly and rapidly from one logic state to the other. One of the corollaries of the Schmitt trigger's use of positive feedback is that, should the input voltage move gently down again past the same threshold, the positive feedback will hold the output in the same state with no change. This effect is called hysteresis: the input voltage has to drop past a different, lower threshold to 'un-latch' the output and reset it to its original digital value. By reducing the extent of the positive feedback, the hysteresis-width can be reduced, but it can not entirely be eradicated. The Schmitt trigger is, to some extent, a latching circuit.[18]
Yeah. It helps it settle on one value or the other.
In the case of Global Warming, many people think that positive feedback means that it is going to push the temperature up and up and up. The reality is that as we introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere, we wil reach a new "equilibrium" with feedback, both positive and negative, helping keep it reasonable close to that equilibrium. As the levels of CO2 slowly fall in the future when we aren't emitting as much CO2 into the atmosphere, then the equilibrium temperature will slowly fall as well.
Many alarmists seem to think that positive feedback means that it will push the temperature up and up and up and up and up. Your example about the electric circuit is a pretty good example of the differences between positive feedback and what the general public imagines positive feedback to be.
13 Apr 2018, 10:27 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
The chief economist of the world bank says that by 2050 their as estimated to be around 200 million climate refugees fleeing from what we now know as the arc of instability.
When you need a tooth extracted you consult a dentist, when you need surgery a surgeon is required, when you hop on a plane you hope the one flying it is a pilot, but when you want to know about the Earth's climate you consult... an economist?
Shahunshah wrote:
And I think it is the IPCC estimated that in that same year, the amount of Carbon dioxide will be the most it has ever been in 24 million years. If that is our future won't we see nationalistic fervor and fear of different cultures be inflamed to a horrific level?
You think?! Even if true, so what? CO2 is irrelevant.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| change, failure, rejection |
01 Jul 2025, 10:00 pm |
| I feel bad because I got asked for change. |
18 Jul 2025, 9:16 pm |
| Aspergers --> Spectrum change |
05 Jul 2025, 8:48 pm |
