Global Warming? Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979!

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
". . . just look at Venus" as an example of proof of theory "?

Venus atmosphere contains 96.5% CO2 and water vapour is a trace element at just 20ppm (its so small it isnt worth calulating it percentage value).

Earth atmosphere contains just 0.038% CO2 (380ppm) so is clearly a trace element (with only around 3% of that 0.038% being attributed to man, i.e about 11ppm), while water vapour varies anything between 1% and 3% of the total composition of the atmosphere (therefore many magitudes greater than Venus's measly 20ppm)

  • Quoting Venus as an example of proof would only have credence if you were comparing like with like - which as you can see from these basic numbers you are so obviously not.
  • Look up 'Argument from Personal Incredulity';
  • Look up Metastability;
  • Look up Dynamic Stability;
  • Look up Tipping Point;
  • Look up Greenhouse Effect;
  • Look up Venus;
  • Look up Runaway Greenhouse Effect;
  • Look up Infra Red Radiation and Bipolar Molecules;
  • Look up Infra Red Absorption of Water Vapour;
Then come back and show why these don't apply to the Earth.
 
Last edited:

Matt W

Active Member
Water Vapour is one of the biggest contributors to 'global warming' anyhow...
 

splatz

Active Member
  • Look up 'Argument from Personal Incredulity';
  • Look up Metastability;
  • Look up Dynamic Stability;
  • Look up Tipping Point;
  • Look up Greenhouse Effect;
  • Look up Venus;
  • Look up Runaway Greenhouse Effect;
  • Look up Infra Red Radiation and Bipolar Molecules;
  • Look up Infra Red Absorption of Water Vapour;
Then come back and show why these don't apply to the Earth.

Bizzare response . . .

I only pointed out that you cannot compare venus to earth - two very different planets in so many different ways.

It is well known in science what high concentrations of CO2 can do. You can easily perform simple experiments to show what high concentrations of C2 can do. But earth does not have high concentrations of CO2 nor water vapour while the atmosphere of venus is virtually all CO2.

I have no doubt that there could be a tipping point, but science still does not know what the CO2 tipping point is as there is so much about about the carbon cycle that is unknown.
 

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
... I only pointed out that you cannot compare venus to earth - two very different planets in so many different ways. ...
I disagree. What happened on Venus is very comparable to what might happen on Earth. Venus is an extreme example of runaway GE, and nobody is predicting that for here (not yet, anyway). But the difference is in degree, not in principle.

The two most important ones in my list are Argument from Personal Incredulity (“numbers are so small that I can’t conceive of it happening here”) and Metastability (small inputs to a stable system can cause the stable point to shift significantly). Most of the others are pointers to the mechanism of the GE, which many people (I don’t include you here) seem capable of simply wishing away.
 

splatz

Active Member
As far as Argument from Personal Incredulity is concerned this is just a comparison of two numbers: 0.038% and 95% CO2 concentration. My comment did not express any conclusion from these numbers only that the two planets are very different so it would be unfair to compare what happens on one as a model for what could happen on the other. So this isn't about Argument from Personal Incredulity ;)

Sure, theoretically earth could have runaway warming at a certain level of CO2 concentration that could turn it into another Venus but no one knows at what level this would occur - anyone who claims to know is purely speculating.

So let me clarify my original point by listing a few of the differences between the two planets - Venus is:

Closer to the sun
Rotates once every 243 days
Its Atmosphere is 90 times more dense than earth (equivalent to 1 km under our oceans)
Is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid
Has no carbon cycle to lock carbon into rocks and surface details nor organic life to absorb it in biomass
Any water it might have had has most likely dissociated
Because of the lack of a planetary magnetic field, any hydrogen has been swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind
The planet's minute axial tilt (less than three degrees, compared with 23 degrees for Earth), also minimizes seasonal temperature variation.

So while it could conceivably be a model for how things could turn out on earth, there are so many other factors at work that would be major contributary factors to how Venus truned out, that simply do not exist on Earth, so the chances are so remote that statistically it is very very unlikely for Earth to follow what happened to Venus in the same way.

Earth is pretty special when you think about it - 5/7 water, strong magnetic field, optimum distance from the sun, optimum rotation speed, optimum atmosphere density. . . the list goes on . . .

Small things happen all the time on earth that cause changes. The important question that many scientists are working on is what sort of change to CO2 concentration will cause runaway warming. You can't answer that central problem until you better understand the earth's chaotic positive and negative feedback systems. Scientist acknowledge that there is a lot more work to be done to understand many aspects of our planet.

I disagree. What happened on Venus is very comparable to what might happen on Earth. Venus is an extreme example of runaway GE, and nobody is predicting that for here (not yet, anyway). But the difference is in degree, not in principle.

The two most important ones in my list are Argument from Personal Incredulity (“numbers are so small that I can't conceive of it happening here”) and Metastability (small inputs to a stable system can cause the stable point to shift significantly). Most of the others are pointers to the mechanism of the GE, which many people (I don't include you here) seem capable of simply wishing away.
 
Last edited:

johntheexpat

Distinguished Member
Sure, theoretically earth could have runaway warming at a certain level of CO2 concentration that could turn it into another Venus but no one knows at what level this would occur - anyone who claims to know is purely speculating.

And bearing what you said in the paragraph above, now would be a good time for you to watch the video that Mike TV's signature links to.
Its certainly not about 100% proof. Its not even about proof. Proof will be available if and when its a done deed.
Its about risk.
There is a very real possibility, backed up by lots of credible science, that if we continue emitting greenhouse gases at the current rate we will trigger a rate of Global Warming that makes it extremely hard for mankind to adapt to.
The consequences of this will be dire.
Its not certain, its very possible and that is the real cause for concern. Are we prepared to gamble on creating an environmental disaster for future generations, just so we can carry on as we are?
You may well say yes. And it is, I suppose, a fair stance. The future generations will owe us for their very existence and if what we leave them is a burnt out planet with scarce resources, tough on them!
Or perhaps we should take the stance that what makes mankind superior to other species is our ability to plan for the future and create a better world for us and our off-spring.
You pay your money and you take your choice.
So, perhaps we shouldn't be arguing about the science and proof or lack of it. Perhaps we should be talking risk, potential costs to future generations vs damage to the Global economy today, or other areas which are somewhat more philosophical rather than scientific.
Is the approach we are currently taking (ie we know it is a risk but do nothing none-the-less) the best approach?
Or should we spend money today to alleviate potential problems tomorrow?

Definitely time to watch the video.

Edit: He's moved it! I'll try and find a link to it.
 
Last edited:

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
As far as Argument from Personal Incredulity is concerned this is just a comparison of two numbers: 0.038% and 95% CO2 concentration. My comment did not express any conclusion from these numbers only that the two planets are very different so it would be unfair to compare what happens on one as a model for what could happen on the other. So this isn't about Argument from Personal Incredulity ;)

Sure, theoretically earth could have runaway warming at a certain level of CO2 concentration that could turn it into another Venus but no one knows at what level this would occur - anyone who claims to know is purely speculating.

So let me clarify my original point by listing a few of the differences between the two planets - Venus is:

Closer to the sun
Rotates once every 243 days
Its Atmosphere is 90 times more dense than earth (equivalent to 1 km under our oceans)
Is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid
Has no carbon cycle to lock carbon into rocks and surface details nor organic life to absorb it in biomass
Any water it might have had has most likely dissociated
Because of the lack of a planetary magnetic field, any hydrogen has been swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind
The planet's minute axial tilt (less than three degrees, compared with 23 degrees for Earth), also minimizes seasonal temperature variation.

So while it could conceivably be a model for how things could turn out on earth, there are so many other factors at work that would be major contributary factors to how Venus truned out, that simply do not exist on Earth, so the chances are so remote that statistically it is very very unlikely for Earth to follow what happened to Venus in the same way.

Earth is pretty special when you think about it - 5/7 water, strong magnetic field, optimum distance from the sun, optimum rotation speed, optimum atmosphere density. . . the list goes on . . .

Small things happen all the time on earth that cause changes. The important question that many scientists are working on is what sort of change to CO2 concentration will cause runaway warming. You can't answer that central problem until you better understand the earth's chaotic positive and negative feedback systems. Scientist acknowledge that there is a lot more work to be done to understand many aspects of our planet.
I was simply pointing to Venus as an example of the Greenhouse Effect and what it could do. There are lots of GE naysayers out there who seem to doubt that the effect exists at all, and many others seem to think that even if it does then man’s CO2 input is negligible compared with other sources. Such people are grossly misinformed.

I’m not saying that the Earth will undergo a runaway effect in the near future, and I’m not saying that conditions on Venus are the same as they are here. I am saying that Venus is comparable to the Earth in that the same principles apply in both places, and that if the GE naysayers don’t believe me, then they should look at Venus.


I am also saying that:
  • CO2 traps heat;
  • More CO2 traps more heat;
  • We are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere;
  • The planet must warm as a result;
  • Resultant climatic disruption is inevitable and may well be happening already;
    [*]Climatic systems and (probably) the O2<->CO2 cycle are metastable and possibly chaotic. Small inputs can have large consequences;
    [*]The effects of the disruption are unpredictable;
  • Its possible downside is worse than the possible upside is good;
  • Therefore mitigation is desirable.
 

alaniho

Active Member
Oh, no! You ain't going to be allowed to get away with nonsense like that.

- Global warming (GW) is a result of the greenhouse effect.
- The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases trapping the sun's heat.
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
- Human activity is increasing the CO2 content of the air.
- Therefore, the atmosphere will warm.



This mechanism has been well-understood for at least 100 years, and GW has been forecast for at least 50. It is as near to a fact as science allows itself to go. It is not a debate between equally-based but contrasting hypotheses.
  • It is simply wrong to claim that there is no proof of the theory (as I have said many times before - look at Venus).
  • It is simply wrong to say that as many scientists dispute GW as support it. As johntheexpat rightly points out, a Nobel Prize is the least someone could expect if she manages to overturn such a simple and well-established physical mechanism.
  • It is simply wrong to imply that the burden of proof lies equally with the scientific community as it does with the GW naysayers. Any proof of this kind lies squarely and 100% with the latter (see also creationism vs natural selection)
Oh, and while we're at it, despite your sarcastic allusion, one of the likely effects of GW is an increase in rainfall over Britain, plus possibly an overall cooler climate, at least in the first stages.


wow thanks for opening my eyes to the truth with your irrefuteable proof :rolleyes:

this is the kind of arrogrant rubbish that turns people against the MMGF fanatics.

you are trying to say cooler climate = global warming :rolleyes:
 

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
wow thanks for opening my eyes to the truth with your irrefuteable proof :rolleyes:
You're very welcome. :)
This is the kind of arrogrant rubbish that turns people against the MMGF fanatics.
It may be arrogant, but to call it rubbish simply betrays your prejudices.
you are trying to say cooler climate = global warming :rolleyes:
In the UK, very possibly yes, at least for a time. And that comment, I'm afraid, does show some ignorance. Not even the biggest GW sceptics deny that, if GW were happening, this is the sort if thing which would happen. Our current climate is much milder than you would expect, given the latitude. This is largely because of the warm Gulf Stream. Climate changes are known to affect oceanic currents, and the GS could shift direction or stop entirely. In addition, warmer seas mean more cloud, which means cooler.

And before you point out that more cloud will counteract the effects of GW, remember that this mainly applies to coastal areas; not inland continents nor open oceans. There will be some mitigation, but not enough to halt the overall upward trend.

Most of the early effects of GW will be disruption: more severe and changeable weather patterns. Eventually a new stability will be reached. Our climate will then probably be warmer than now, probably monsoon-like. We don't know if that will be good or bad: some regions may benefit. We could perhaps predict the ski resorts of Greenland; the vineyards of Cornwall & Devon; the wheat fields of Siberia. But we could also predict the great inland deserts of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Amazonia and Congo; the Seas of Uganda and Holland.
 
Last edited:

NikB

Active Member
I was simply pointing to Venus as an example of the Greenhouse Effect and what it could do. There are lots of GE naysayers out there who seem to doubt that the effect exists at all, and many others seem to think that even if it does then man’s CO2 input is negligible compared with other sources. Such people are grossly misinformed.

I’m not saying that the Earth will undergo a runaway effect in the near future, and I’m not saying that conditions on Venus are the same as they are here. I am saying that Venus is comparable to the Earth in that the same principles apply in both places, and that if the GE naysayers don’t believe me, then they should look at Venus.


I am also saying that:
  • CO2 traps heat;
  • More CO2 traps more heat;
  • We are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere;
  • The planet must warm as a result;
  • Resultant climatic disruption is inevitable and may well be happening already;
    [*]Climatic systems and (probably) the O2<->CO2 cycle are metastable and possibly chaotic. Small inputs can have large consequences;
    [*]The effects of the disruption are unpredictable;
  • Its possible downside is worse than the possible upside is good;
  • Therefore mitigation is desirable.

I think that you are trying to simplify the problem too much. There is likely to be more than CO2 involved and we don't actually know if it is just the greenhouse effect that is responsible for climate change. There are so many factors involved. You state it as fact that the planet must warm as a result of more CO2. How do you know this? Is it not possible that there are adaptations that are upscaled to negate the effects of the CO2?

I'm all for sensible change what I don't like is what gets rammed down your throat every day as if this was all a done deal.
 

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
You state it as fact that the planet must warm as a result of more CO2. How do you know this?
The only mechanism for a planet to lose heat is by radiation. The rate of radiated heat loss depends upon the temperature. This is AS-level physics.

Increase the CO2 level -> Absorb more heat from the sun -> Increase temperature -> Increase radiation -> Stabilise at new higher temperature.

Is it not possible that there are adaptations that are upscaled to negate the effects of the CO2?
Yes, it's conceivable, but this is not the same question as the above related to temperature rise. The Earth will be warmer as a result of increased CO2 emissions, because there is no way to stop it. It is a 'done deal' unless you want to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics.

On the other hand, as I and many others keep pointing out, we do not know, and have never claimed to know, what the long-term effects of the temperature rise will be (or even by how much and by how fast it will rise). With hindsight they may be seen to have been good or they may be seen to have been bad. They will not be seen to have been neutral. The concern is that the worst case downside outcome is much more bad than the best case upside is good.

Ecosystems and climate will settle at new levels (though we don't know if we'll like them), after a period of extreme instability. Sea levels, salinity and ice caps will stabilise at new values (we probably won't like them). It is conceivable that feedback mechanisms exist which will neutralise the effects of higher temperatures, but there are no known processes which might do this and we'd be foolish in the extreme to rely on something turning up.
 

Miyazaki

Distinguished Member
If people want to know what a 10 degrees celcius temperature rise would do to the biodiversity on Earth, I suggest reading up on the Permian mass extinction. 95% of all life became extinct.
 

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
Yes, it's conceivable, but this is not the same question as the above related to temperature rise. The Earth will be warmer as a result of increased CO2 emissions, because there is no way to stop it. It is a 'done deal' unless you want to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics.

That assumes that the same amount of sunlight actually reaches the earth - changes in percentage of cloud cover and hence reflection, will invalidate your statement.
 

johntheexpat

Distinguished Member
That assumes that the same amount of sunlight actually reaches the earth - changes in percentage of cloud cover and hence reflection, will invalidate your statement.

More cloud permanently in the skies would certainly help. But there is absolutely no guarantee that it will happen, the climate is far too complex to say it will.
'The Scientists' have presented a scenario, backed up by years of coherent, peer reviewed research, which presents the possibility of Global warming at a rate at which mankind's ability to adapt will be stretched way beyond what is possible.
Of course, some will survive. But mankind as a whole may be dealt a huge blow. Which is what they (Governments, GW activists etc etc) want to avoid.
With extreme action sooner rather than later, at best we will come up with a plan that slows the rate of increase, allowing mankind to adapt without us resorting to WW3 to sort out who gets the best land etc.
With extreme action sooner rather than later, at worst we will have spent a lot of money developing technology that reduces our fossil fuel addiction, making the resource last longer. The amount being talked about is 1% of the Global economy being diverted to 'The Cause'. Not exactly bankrupting the planet!
With no action, some people are talking about the human population being 1Bn by the end of this century.
So, is it really worth risking the worst case scenario, for the sake of 1%?

Do you feel lucky?
 

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
I was only correcting a basic point of science. ;)

More cloud permanently in the skies would certainly help. But there is absolutely no guarantee that it will happen, the climate is far too complex to say it will.

I didn't say it would. I'm in the slightly skeptical camp but on the whole tend to think that MMGW is a fact. But I don't think the above paragraph actually does 'your' cause much good. After all if cloud cover is too difficult to predict, why should ocean currents, resultant ice thickness, plankton creation rates, etc etc be any easier to predict and hence model.

'The Scientists' have presented a scenario, backed up by years of coherent, peer reviewed research, which presents the possibility of Global warming at a rate at which mankind's ability to adapt will be stretched way beyond what is possible.

I love the phrase 'The Scientists' - science has always had a problem in that views outside of the mainstream are extremely hard to get accepted or indeed published. On the whole I feel the consensus is probably right - but the problems experienced by Lomborg for instance, undermine (at least in my mind) - the process.

With extreme action sooner rather than later, at best we will come up with a plan that slows the rate of increase, allowing mankind to adapt without us resorting to WW3 to sort out who gets the best land etc.

Or we put a sun shade up in orbit between the earth and the sun.

With extreme action sooner rather than later, at worst we will have spent a lot of money developing technology that reduces our fossil fuel addiction, making the resource last longer. The amount being talked about is 1% of the Global economy being diverted to 'The Cause'. Not exactly bankrupting the planet!
With no action, some people are talking about the human population being 1Bn by the end of this century.
So, is it really worth risking the worst case scenario, for the sake of 1%?


Now that I agree with entirely.
 

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
That assumes that the same amount of sunlight actually reaches the earth - changes in percentage of cloud cover and hence reflection, will invalidate your statement.
They won't, actually. The increased cloud cover will reflect some light, sure, but don't forget that it's taken extra heat to create the cover. All that will happen is that the higher-temperature stability will be a little lower than it would with clear skies.

Not to mention the lower albedo as a result of melting polar ice.
 

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
They won't, actually. The increased cloud cover will reflect some light, sure, but don't forget that it's taken extra heat to create the cover. All that will happen is that the higher-temperature stability will be a little lower than it would with clear skies.

I don't really disagree with you - I was just pointing out that your absolute statement can't be that definitive.

Not to mention the lower albedo as a result of melting polar ice.

And we end up with large ice bergs floating in the sea at attitudes closer to the equator than the poles, which results in a higher albedo ..........
 

arthurdentpc

Active Member
Pity in some respect that the price of oil came down. People may scoff at climate change, but they soon change their habits when it hurts their wallets... :lesson:

It just makes so much sense to use our resources more efficiently and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (for so many reasons, not just climate)
Leave aside the yes-it-is no-it-isn't arguments for a moment -let's just assume there IS GW and we as a race ARE responsible. It's the comments like that above which really annoy me.

I live in a part of the UK which is a damn site colder and wetter than the Thames Valley. My house requires heating throughout the Winter months. I have oil heating, and use approx 1000-1200 litres of oil per year, the vast majority of it from late October to early March. This does NOT mean I have an addiction to burning fossil fuels or to destroying the planet. It means I use the current popular system, promoted by governments for years, of heating my home. If someone can show me a way of heating my home which doesn't involve burning some sort of fossil fuel, then for goodness sake please do, because I will change to it in an instant, and very gladly.

There is one other thing though - I have to be able to afford it on an average wage.

In conclusion then - hurting the likes of me in the wallet by high oil prices will only do one thing - make me poorer :lesson: But giving me a viable, affordable, alternative - bingo :lesson:
 
Last edited:

loz

Distinguished Member
Leave aside the yes-it-is no-it-isn't arguments for a moment -let's just assume there IS GW and we as a race ARE responsible. It's the comments like that above which really annoy me.

I live in a part of the UK which is a damn site colder and wetter than the Thames Valley. My house requires heating throughout the Winter months. I have oil heating, and use approx 1000-1200 litres of oil per year, the vast majority of it from late October to early March. This does NOT mean I have an addiction to burning fossil fuels or to destroying the planet. It means I use the current popular system, promoted by governments for years, of heating my home. If someone can show me a way of heating my home which doesn't involve burning some sort of fossil fuel, then for goodness sake please do, because I will change to it in an instant, and very gladly.

There is one other thing though - I have to be able to afford it on an average wage.

In conclusion then - hurting the likes of me in the wallet by high oil prices will only do one thing - make me poorer :lesson: But giving me a viable, affordable, alternative - bingo :lesson:

No. Eventually it will make you change. :lesson:
Economically it will be cheaper to do the conversion than carry on using fossil fuels.
Or would you simply like the government to mandate it?

It doesn't matter who 'encouraged' you in the past, who is to blame or not, or whether CG is happening or not, or what causes it. The simple fact is that once the recession is over, then world demand is going to send the price of oil soaring to levels we can't imagine today. Better get used to it....
 

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
Leave aside the yes-it-is no-it-isn't arguments for a moment -let's just assume there IS GW and we as a race ARE responsible. It's the comments like that above which really annoy me.

I live in a part of the UK which is a damn site colder and wetter than the Thames Valley. My house requires heating throughout the Winter months. I have oil heating, and use approx 1000-1200 litres of oil per year, the vast majority of it from late October to early March. This does NOT mean I have an addiction to burning fossil fuels or to destroying the planet. It means I use the current popular system, promoted by governments for years, of heating my home. If someone can show me a way of heating my home which doesn't involve burning some sort of fossil fuel, then for goodness sake please do, because I will change to it in an instant, and very gladly.

There is one other thing though - I have to be able to afford it on an average wage.

In conclusion then - hurting the likes of me in the wallet by high oil prices will only do one thing - make me poorer :lesson: But giving me a viable, affordable, alternative - bingo :lesson:
I'd be interested to hear which government, over which years, promoted oil heating over any other kind.

Oil has always been seen as the least attractive and most expensive option, mainly because of delivery costs, and I cannot for the life of me remember when we were advised to use it in preference to gas or electricity.

You want to know how to heat your home without burning fossil fuel? It's easy: renewable and nuclear electricity (though for the time being, any old electricity will use less fossil fuel than your oil system).

We are at the beginning of the end of the stupid waste of burning fossil fuel simply for the heat it give out, and that includes all those of us with gas heating as well. We're all going to have to go electric soon.

You demand an 'affordable' solution. Well, we'd all like that. But nobody has a duty to fit the cost of fuel to your spending habits. You'll have to learn to live with it, as we all will. It pains me to say it, but this for once is not the government's fault. It's nobody's fault, really: it's in our makeup to sleepwalk into crises.
 

deckingman

Well-known Member
So you have no sympathy for those who's only income is the state pension for instance, even with the pathetic winter fuel allowance?

Even now, in our so called civilised society, there are elderly people who spend much of the cold winter wrapped in a blanket worrying about whether to put one bar of the fire on or buy food instead (which is also going to become far more costly).

As ever, the wealthy will be able to pay the higher prices of either fossil fuel or reneweable energy, or be able to invest in technologies such as solar panels, heat pumps or whatever. Those less well off, will just have to suffer.

Well I suppose if the elderly and poor are left to freeze or starve to death, then at least this will ease the population burden for the rest of you.
 

loz

Distinguished Member
So you have no sympathy for those who's only income is the state pension for instance, even with the pathetic winter fuel allowance?

Even now, in our so called civilised society, there are elderly people who spend much of the cold winter wrapped in a blanket worrying about whether to put one bar of the fire on or buy food instead (which is also going to become far more costly).

As ever, the wealthy will be able to pay the higher prices of either fossil fuel or reneweable energy, or be able to invest in technologies such as solar panels, heat pumps or whatever. Those less well off, will just have to suffer.

Well I suppose if the elderly and poor are left to freeze or starve to death, then at least this will ease the population burden for the rest of you.

Don't mix two different problems to try and cloud the issue.

That some members of society receive inadequate support is not a reason to justify the rest of us paying less for carbon-based fuel.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Samsung QN95B 4K QLED TV Review
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Disney+ confirms price increases coming in December
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Samsung unveils Galaxy Z Flip 4 and Fold 4 smartphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast: 8th August 2022
  • By Casimir Harlow
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 8th August 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom