Greenhouse Thermodynamics of Water Vapor and the IPCC

Following on from the line of investigation started here, I examine the quality of evidence the IPCC presents for global warming due to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect. The summary for policy makers apparently sums up the current state of knowledge, referencing the relevant chapter section (3.4):

The average atmospheric water vapour content has
increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean
as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is
broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that
warmer air can hold. {3.4}

Turning to the summary of Chapter 3 of the AR4: Chapter 3 Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change where the evidence for this claim is presented it is stated:

Similar upward trends in upper-tropospheric specific humidity, which considerably enhance the greenhouse effect, have also been
detected from 1982 to 2004. (Chapter 3 p4)

Turning to section 3.4 there is an extended discussion of the problems
of direct measurements of specific humidity via radiosondes (weather balloons)
and of controversy within the field e.g.

Changes in upper-tropospheric water vapour
in response to a warming climate have been the subject of
significant debate. (Chap 3 Sect 3.4 p39)

However, despite acknowledging a variation in the literature on this issue, and the availability of direct data that does indicate a detectable trend in upper-atmosphere, the conclude:

To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable
trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity. However, there
is now evidence for global increases in upper-tropospheric
specific humidity over the past two decades, which is consistent
with the observed increases in tropospheric temperatures and
the absence of any change in relative humidity. (Chap 3 sect 3.4 p40)

The evidence for this conclusion is from the following line of reasoning:

In the absence of large changes in relative humidity, the
observed warming of the troposphere (see Section 3.4.1) implies
that the specific humidity in the upper troposphere should have
increased. As the upper troposphere moistens, the emission level
for T12 increases due to the increasing opacity of water vapour
along the satellite line of sight. In contrast, the emission level
for the MSU T2 remains constant because it depends primarily
on the concentration of oxygen, which does not vary by any
appreciable amount. Therefore, if the atmosphere moistens,
the brightness temperature difference (T2 − T12) will increase
over time due to the divergence of their emission levels (Soden
et al., 2005). This radiative signature of upper-tropospheric
moistening is evident in the positive trends of T2 − T12 for the
period 1982 to 2004 (Figure 3.21). If the specific humidity in
the upper troposphere had not increased over this period, the
emission level for T12 would have remained unchanged and
T2 − T12 would show little trend over this period (dashed line
in Figure 3.21).

In other words, if we make some obviously false assumptions of no large change in relative humidity (its falling) and increasing temperatures in the upper atmosphere (also falling), then we can conclude that the specific humidity is increasing in the upper troposphere.

As further evidence, direct measurements of specific humidity are falling, here
is the actual specific humidity measured at the upper troposphere of 300hPa, courtesy of Anthony Watts.

Does anyone else find AR4 Section 3.4 breathtaking in its misrepresentation of the evidence? The claim that “the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity” contradicts direct evidence, and goes on to use false assumptions to make its unqualified claims. It should be noted that Brian Soden (who has published a guest commentary at RealClimate.org), the cited reference for the in the passage above, is a lead author on the chapter.

I will add it to my examples of bias I have found from my examination of evidence related to the AR4 so far.

These include:

  1. Rahmstorf, who claimed climate responding faster than expected on the basis of
    a dubious graph with no statistical test;
  2. Harries who claimed to detect the greenhouse effect from CO2 spectral brightening
    but whose later (unreported) publications were much more equivocal;
  3. Soden, who claims to have detected increase in specific water vapor from
    spectral brightening using blatantly false assumptions.

Even though the AR4 report has been applauded by the major scientific institutions of the world, a cursory review appears to reveal huge biases.
At the very least, the literature deserves to be reviewed in a truly systematic way, focussed on quality of evidence, by an unbiased panel of experts. Such a review would be commissioned with emphasis on meta-questions such as: Is it systematic? What is the system of guidance given to the authors? Is it unbiased?

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Greenhouse Thermodynamics of Water Vapor and the IPCC

  1. This is great work!
    I would like to put together a collection of false and misleading statements by the IPCC. This is a good start.

    I have modified my earlier discussion of the water vapour issue and the Miskolczi greenhouse effect theory here:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

    This includes a section explaining the 20th century warming and water vapour trends as the sum of two processes:
    1. Solar forcing increase with constant CO2; plus,
    2. Increasing CO2 concentration with constant solar forcing

    The falling relative humidity falsifies the climate models. CO2 in just replacing water vapor as a greenhouse gas. The increasing specific humidity in the lower atmosphere is due to a positive water vapor feedback from increased solar forcing.

    Please review and provide feedback.

  2. This is great work!
    I would like to put together a collection of false and misleading statements by the IPCC. This is a good start.

    I have modified my earlier discussion of the water vapour issue and the Miskolczi greenhouse effect theory here:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

    This includes a section explaining the 20th century warming and water vapour trends as the sum of two processes:
    1. Solar forcing increase with constant CO2; plus,
    2. Increasing CO2 concentration with constant solar forcing

    The falling relative humidity falsifies the climate models. CO2 in just replacing water vapor as a greenhouse gas. The increasing specific humidity in the lower atmosphere is due to a positive water vapor feedback from increased solar forcing.

    Please review and provide feedback.

  3. Added this blog to my bookmarks. Need to buy the book referenced above. Always wondered about the assumptions made in the various models. I myself prefer the animal fur/birthrate/last frost/bat population method of predicting weather and climate change. Wrap your brain around that feedback loop.

  4. Added this blog to my bookmarks. Need to buy the book referenced above. Always wondered about the assumptions made in the various models. I myself prefer the animal fur/birthrate/last frost/bat population method of predicting weather and climate change. Wrap your brain around that feedback loop.

  5. Hi David–
    Interesting comparisons. Definitely, the text doesn’t match the appearance of these figures. As the figures are at NOAA, one has to assume they are at least somewhat accepted as meaningful.

    That said, having heard mumblings and grumblings about radiosondes for years, I’d be cautious about interpreting any humidity measurements unless I knew the provenance of the data. You’ll probably guess what sort of mumblings and grumblings I heard by examining the authors of Dry Bias and Variability in Vaisala RS80-H Radiosondes: The ARM Experience.

    The paper cited discusses the problems with Vaisalla equipment used to measure relative humidity and a correction that was eventually developed after problems were uncovered. Luckily, serial numbers of equipment were recorded. ( In one of the grumblings, my husband related that he had been recording these along with the data, and someone non-experimentalist at the table marveled and suggested he must be anal to have thought of that. Jim was astonished at the thought that someone would launch sonds and NOT record the serial number of the equipment! Recording fiduciary information is generally advised in the engineering literature on experimental methods. Anyway, as you see in the paper, if the serial numbers had not been recorded, the correction could never have been retroactively applied. )

  6. Hi David–
    Interesting comparisons. Definitely, the text doesn’t match the appearance of these figures. As the figures are at NOAA, one has to assume they are at least somewhat accepted as meaningful.

    That said, having heard mumblings and grumblings about radiosondes for years, I’d be cautious about interpreting any humidity measurements unless I knew the provenance of the data. You’ll probably guess what sort of mumblings and grumblings I heard by examining the authors of Dry Bias and Variability in Vaisala RS80-H Radiosondes: The ARM Experience.

    The paper cited discusses the problems with Vaisalla equipment used to measure relative humidity and a correction that was eventually developed after problems were uncovered. Luckily, serial numbers of equipment were recorded. ( In one of the grumblings, my husband related that he had been recording these along with the data, and someone non-experimentalist at the table marveled and suggested he must be anal to have thought of that. Jim was astonished at the thought that someone would launch sonds and NOT record the serial number of the equipment! Recording fiduciary information is generally advised in the engineering literature on experimental methods. Anyway, as you see in the paper, if the serial numbers had not been recorded, the correction could never have been retroactively applied. )

  7. Hi Lucia, Uncertainty in radiosondes does not affect the argument that there are inconsistencies throughout the evidence. Why do they grumble about the radiosonde data so much in the WG1 S3.4, but give the spectrometry from satellites a pass? I think they grumble more about the radiosondes more because it doesn’t agree with the models.

    Something can be contradicted by the data, but not falsified by it. I am not after falsification. I think that if there are contradictions they need to be up front about them and downgrade the evidence for global warming accordingly.

    Also, variability between radiosondes as mentioned in the paper would not alter the consistent downtrend shown the the graphs of RH from NOAA, as they are averaged over many sondes at many locations at many times.

    Even if all the radiosonde data were biased, the statment from the IPCC report below would still be false.

    To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity.

    Thanks for the reference. I will have a read.

  8. Hi Lucia, Uncertainty in radiosondes does not affect the argument that there are inconsistencies throughout the evidence. Why do they grumble about the radiosonde data so much in the WG1 S3.4, but give the spectrometry from satellites a pass? I think they grumble more about the radiosondes more because it doesn’t agree with the models.

    Something can be contradicted by the data, but not falsified by it. I am not after falsification. I think that if there are contradictions they need to be up front about them and downgrade the evidence for global warming accordingly.

    Also, variability between radiosondes as mentioned in the paper would not alter the consistent downtrend shown the the graphs of RH from NOAA, as they are averaged over many sondes at many locations at many times.

    Even if all the radiosonde data were biased, the statment from the IPCC report below would still be false.

    To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity.

    Thanks for the reference. I will have a read.

  9. The IPCC FAR sections 3.4 show that 300hp is the boundary between the troposphere and the tropopause. A trend at 300hp is probably not representative of the trend for the ‘upper troposphere’. I couldn’t find anything that actually defined ‘upper troposphere’. But I could have looked harder..

    And although a chart from NCEP of specific humidity at 300hp is falling, a chart of relative humidity at 300hp does not show any obvious overall fall – at least to my eyes; there are several ups and downs along the way.

    Do we know whether they directly measure relative humidity and then calculate specific humidity, or is it the other way round? Or do they directly measure both?

  10. The IPCC FAR sections 3.4 show that 300hp is the boundary between the troposphere and the tropopause. A trend at 300hp is probably not representative of the trend for the ‘upper troposphere’. I couldn’t find anything that actually defined ‘upper troposphere’. But I could have looked harder..

    And although a chart from NCEP of specific humidity at 300hp is falling, a chart of relative humidity at 300hp does not show any obvious overall fall – at least to my eyes; there are several ups and downs along the way.

    Do we know whether they directly measure relative humidity and then calculate specific humidity, or is it the other way round? Or do they directly measure both?

  11. Thick animal fur (like buffalo or horse hair) production predicts a hard winter and latent fur loss predicts a late and short spring/summer season. Late frosts kill off row crops, thus predicting a hard winter in terms of preserved food. For some unknown reason, sheep will have multiple births when later pasture proves to be sufficient but will have only one when later pastures will be thin. So birth rates seem to predict growing season length. With fall calving cows, early cold nights stress the cows and reduces milk production, resulting in low weight gain and higher mortality rates. Bats mate in the fall and then fertilize in the spring based on insect count. If insect counts are down due to a hard winter, late frost, and/or last spring/summer start, pregnancies occur later so that insect population will be sufficient for lactation. Therefor late gestation timing predicts a short growing season. If insect populations continue to be low or are killed off by an early frost, momma bats will start abandoning their one baby, somehow knowing that they will eventually not have enough milk and energy to get their baby and themselves out of the rookery and on the migration path. All this I learned from my grandmother who was nannied by a Nez Pierce Indian woman.

  12. Thick animal fur (like buffalo or horse hair) production predicts a hard winter and latent fur loss predicts a late and short spring/summer season. Late frosts kill off row crops, thus predicting a hard winter in terms of preserved food. For some unknown reason, sheep will have multiple births when later pasture proves to be sufficient but will have only one when later pastures will be thin. So birth rates seem to predict growing season length. With fall calving cows, early cold nights stress the cows and reduces milk production, resulting in low weight gain and higher mortality rates. Bats mate in the fall and then fertilize in the spring based on insect count. If insect counts are down due to a hard winter, late frost, and/or last spring/summer start, pregnancies occur later so that insect population will be sufficient for lactation. Therefor late gestation timing predicts a short growing season. If insect populations continue to be low or are killed off by an early frost, momma bats will start abandoning their one baby, somehow knowing that they will eventually not have enough milk and energy to get their baby and themselves out of the rookery and on the migration path. All this I learned from my grandmother who was nannied by a Nez Pierce Indian woman.

  13. I don’t want to be a show-stopper, but IPCC 4AR (3.4.2.1) also states that …

    … As Trenberth and Smith (2005) showed, such checks indicate considerable problems prior to 1979 in reanalyses, but results are in better agreement thereafter for ERA-40. Evaluations of column integrated water vapour from the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP; Randel et al., 1996), and reanalysis data sets from NRA, NCEP-2 and ERA-15/ERA-40 (see Appendix 3.B.5.4) reveal several deficiencies and spurious trends, which limit their utility for climate monitoring (Zveryaev and Chu, 2003; Trenberth et al., 2005a; Uppala et al., 2005). The spatial distributions, trends and interannual variability of water vapour over the tropical oceans are not always well reproduced by reanalyses, even after the 1970s (Allan et al., 2002, 2004; Trenberth et al., 2005a). …

    So, in other words, don’t trust the reanalyses w.r.t. water vapor, especially its long term variations! This is not surprising, given the known problems with for example water vapor observations made by radiosondes.

    Anyway, since relative humidity is field – a statistic of an air mass directly related to the temperature of that air mass – and not a physical quantity, I would not recommend averaging RH values – also because of the non-linear relation between RH and temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron). I actually have no idea how to interpret an average RH value…

    [and yes, I realize that RH is key in climate model cloud parameterizations, but at least there it is used as a local variable, although keeping it constant is definitely an ad-hoc assumption]

  14. I don’t want to be a show-stopper, but IPCC 4AR (3.4.2.1) also states that …

    … As Trenberth and Smith (2005) showed, such checks indicate considerable problems prior to 1979 in reanalyses, but results are in better agreement thereafter for ERA-40. Evaluations of column integrated water vapour from the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP; Randel et al., 1996), and reanalysis data sets from NRA, NCEP-2 and ERA-15/ERA-40 (see Appendix 3.B.5.4) reveal several deficiencies and spurious trends, which limit their utility for climate monitoring (Zveryaev and Chu, 2003; Trenberth et al., 2005a; Uppala et al., 2005). The spatial distributions, trends and interannual variability of water vapour over the tropical oceans are not always well reproduced by reanalyses, even after the 1970s (Allan et al., 2002, 2004; Trenberth et al., 2005a). …

    So, in other words, don’t trust the reanalyses w.r.t. water vapor, especially its long term variations! This is not surprising, given the known problems with for example water vapor observations made by radiosondes.

    Anyway, since relative humidity is field – a statistic of an air mass directly related to the temperature of that air mass – and not a physical quantity, I would not recommend averaging RH values – also because of the non-linear relation between RH and temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron). I actually have no idea how to interpret an average RH value…

    [and yes, I realize that RH is key in climate model cloud parameterizations, but at least there it is used as a local variable, although keeping it constant is definitely an ad-hoc assumption]

  15. “I don’t want to be a show-stopper”

    Thats OK. Perhaps you would like to answer some of the questions.

    1. “I would not recommend averaging RH values”

    But the IPCC does, in many places, and concludes: “To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity.”

    There is data available that shows a decreasing RH, however flawed.

    2. All of the problems with SH measurements could be applied to global temperatures: ” i.e. “several deficiencies and spurious trends”. Where are the confidence intervals that allow you to write them off?

    3. “To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity. However, there is now evidence for global increases in upper-tropospheric specific humidity …” How could this be an accurate statement? Where is (a) the data to show no trend in relative humidity, (b) acknowledgment of the variance in the data and results around specific humidity?

  16. “I don’t want to be a show-stopper”

    Thats OK. Perhaps you would like to answer some of the questions.

    1. “I would not recommend averaging RH values”

    But the IPCC does, in many places, and concludes: “To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity.”

    There is data available that shows a decreasing RH, however flawed.

    2. All of the problems with SH measurements could be applied to global temperatures: ” i.e. “several deficiencies and spurious trends”. Where are the confidence intervals that allow you to write them off?

    3. “To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity. However, there is now evidence for global increases in upper-tropospheric specific humidity …” How could this be an accurate statement? Where is (a) the data to show no trend in relative humidity, (b) acknowledgment of the variance in the data and results around specific humidity?

  17. Hi David,

    Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of IPCC’s “science by consensus”, to say the least.

    What IPCC refers to – correct me if I am wrong – is the upper tropospheric humidity as measured by satellites. This appears to be a more useful product, i.e. it is a more consistent dataset because it is measured by just one instrument at a time. Obviously there is the issue of how to combine the observations from various platforms that have subsequently been observing but that is a whole other discussion; see for example discussions w.r.t. the determining long time series of microwave temperatures vs. long time series of surface or radiosonde temperatures.

    Measuring RH from sondes is very tricky, especially at higher altitudes where temperatures go below the freezing level of water and you also have to consider relative humidity over ice, which behaves differently from relative humidity over water. Furthermore, the temperature changes with altitude are such that absolute humidity decreases by several orders of magnitude going from the surface the the upper troposphere.

    A “google” search on “relative humidity bias” gives you some idea about the problems encountered in observing relative humidity from sondes.

    Nevertheless, I still think that averaging RH fields – even if they are of high quality – is questionable. I would have to look in some publications whether or not this is discussed and addressed in their papers, but I have not run across any discussion for now. What does it mean, a global average RH? Mix two air masses with different temperatures and the resulting RH is definitely not the average of the RH of both samples.

    Furthermore, I simply don’t know why the reanlysis humidity should be better than those from satellites, let alone that I even don’t know if I should trust the reanalysis w.r.t. humidity. (how to interpret the satellite observations is yet another question …)

    Finally, the statement about constant RH and increasing (probably) refers to a paper by Soden en colleagues in Science (4 November 2005) about those satellite observations of upper air humidity, where they do not see any change in RH, which, by default, means that if temperatures change, specific humidity changes a well. Since temperatures have changed slightly, humidity has changed slightly as well. By the way, that paper claims a good correlation between observed and climate model behavior, but in their climate model they prescribe historical sea surface temperatures, hence it would be surprising if there would be a difference. But that doesn’t tell you much, other than that the model keeps RH constant for good or bad reasons.

    jenne.

  18. Hi David,

    Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of IPCC’s “science by consensus”, to say the least.

    What IPCC refers to – correct me if I am wrong – is the upper tropospheric humidity as measured by satellites. This appears to be a more useful product, i.e. it is a more consistent dataset because it is measured by just one instrument at a time. Obviously there is the issue of how to combine the observations from various platforms that have subsequently been observing but that is a whole other discussion; see for example discussions w.r.t. the determining long time series of microwave temperatures vs. long time series of surface or radiosonde temperatures.

    Measuring RH from sondes is very tricky, especially at higher altitudes where temperatures go below the freezing level of water and you also have to consider relative humidity over ice, which behaves differently from relative humidity over water. Furthermore, the temperature changes with altitude are such that absolute humidity decreases by several orders of magnitude going from the surface the the upper troposphere.

    A “google” search on “relative humidity bias” gives you some idea about the problems encountered in observing relative humidity from sondes.

    Nevertheless, I still think that averaging RH fields – even if they are of high quality – is questionable. I would have to look in some publications whether or not this is discussed and addressed in their papers, but I have not run across any discussion for now. What does it mean, a global average RH? Mix two air masses with different temperatures and the resulting RH is definitely not the average of the RH of both samples.

    Furthermore, I simply don’t know why the reanlysis humidity should be better than those from satellites, let alone that I even don’t know if I should trust the reanalysis w.r.t. humidity. (how to interpret the satellite observations is yet another question …)

    Finally, the statement about constant RH and increasing (probably) refers to a paper by Soden en colleagues in Science (4 November 2005) about those satellite observations of upper air humidity, where they do not see any change in RH, which, by default, means that if temperatures change, specific humidity changes a well. Since temperatures have changed slightly, humidity has changed slightly as well. By the way, that paper claims a good correlation between observed and climate model behavior, but in their climate model they prescribe historical sea surface temperatures, hence it would be surprising if there would be a difference. But that doesn’t tell you much, other than that the model keeps RH constant for good or bad reasons.

    jenne.

  19. Jenne, the objective here is to find out if there is direct proof for warming due to the GHG greenhouse effect, and enhanced greenhouse effect. Now WG1 claims there is, citing Harries 2003 for GHG GE, and Soden for WV GE. That’s spectroscopic data, from satellites that I hope to get an evaluation of by someone who knows more about it. If Soden’s conclusion is based on the assumption of constant RH, then that is a severe limitation to the results.

    The reanalysis data no doubt has problems, but are they sufficiently severe that they should be completely disregarded? When I look at that data for RH in particular, its consistently falling at all levels of the atmosphere. It doesn’t look like random data to me. So at the least one should conclude that there are some contradictory indications within the field.

    Science questions are hard. What I am asking is easier.
    Is this a high quality study and future research is unlikely to change the result, OR
    Is this a study with severe limitations and further research could
    well overturn it?
    Is this really proof positive of EGE, or is there another body buried up there in the upper troposphere?

    The reason we are talking about the RH is because IPCC makes claims about it, and it has impacts, e.g. on model assumptions as you mentioned. Even if global RH has no physical reality, it has a statistical validity, same as global temperature.

  20. Jenne, the objective here is to find out if there is direct proof for warming due to the GHG greenhouse effect, and enhanced greenhouse effect. Now WG1 claims there is, citing Harries 2003 for GHG GE, and Soden for WV GE. That’s spectroscopic data, from satellites that I hope to get an evaluation of by someone who knows more about it. If Soden’s conclusion is based on the assumption of constant RH, then that is a severe limitation to the results.

    The reanalysis data no doubt has problems, but are they sufficiently severe that they should be completely disregarded? When I look at that data for RH in particular, its consistently falling at all levels of the atmosphere. It doesn’t look like random data to me. So at the least one should conclude that there are some contradictory indications within the field.

    Science questions are hard. What I am asking is easier.
    Is this a high quality study and future research is unlikely to change the result, OR
    Is this a study with severe limitations and further research could
    well overturn it?
    Is this really proof positive of EGE, or is there another body buried up there in the upper troposphere?

    The reason we are talking about the RH is because IPCC makes claims about it, and it has impacts, e.g. on model assumptions as you mentioned. Even if global RH has no physical reality, it has a statistical validity, same as global temperature.

  21. David, Ken and others:
    I started to collate a
    “List of errors, distortion and exaggeration in IPCC AR4”
    at climate audit’s message board, see
    http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=176
    Some of them are quite breathtaking, as you say.
    It would be great if you could add the examples you have found to that thread.
    The focus is on WG1 and in particular, claims in the WG1 SPM.
    In the longer term I am taking the best examples and writing a coherent set of web pages on them.

  22. David, Ken and others:
    I started to collate a
    “List of errors, distortion and exaggeration in IPCC AR4”
    at climate audit’s message board, see
    http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=176
    Some of them are quite breathtaking, as you say.
    It would be great if you could add the examples you have found to that thread.
    The focus is on WG1 and in particular, claims in the WG1 SPM.
    In the longer term I am taking the best examples and writing a coherent set of web pages on them.

  23. Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodow

  24. Pingback: witryna

  25. Pingback: wypozyczalnia busow

  26. Pingback: steroids online reviews

  27. Pingback: see latest news

  28. Pingback: my url

  29. Pingback: oferta

  30. Pingback: link indexr services

  31. Pingback: kliknij link

  32. Pingback: google sniper review

  33. Pingback: mario smith

  34. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  35. Pingback: tutaj

  36. Pingback: opieka nad osoba starsza

  37. Pingback: polecam link

  38. Pingback: darmowe filmiki erotyczne

  39. Pingback: kliknij

  40. Pingback: filmowanie Lublin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s