| |
He continued working on
planetary-scale science problems throughout his graduate and
post-graduate studies. The United States had become a space-faring
nation and the allure of the unknown called many planetary physicists’
attention to worlds beyond Earth’s atmosphere. What were conditions on
the other planets like, and could they support life as we know it?
Hansen wrote his doctoral thesis on the atmosphere of Earth’s nearest
neighbor, Venus. Its dense carbon dioxide atmosphere made Venus’ surface
hotter than an oven. Years later Hansen’s studies of Venus would
contribute to his efforts to track Earth’s temperature.
|
Earth is Cooling…No It’s Warming
|
| |
In 1967 Hansen went to work for NASA’s
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York City, where he
continued his research on planetary problems. Around 1970, some
scientists suspected Earth was entering a period of global cooling.
Decades prior, the brilliant Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch
had explained how our world warms and cools on roughly 100,000-year
cycles due to its slowly changing position relative to the Sun.
Milankovitch’s theory suggested Earth should be just beginning to head
into its next ice age cycle. The surface temperature data gathered by
Mitchell seemed to agree; the record showed that Earth experienced a
period of cooling (by about 0.3°C) from 1940 through 1970. Of course,
Mitchell was only collecting data over a fraction of the Northern
Hemisphere—from 20 to 90 degrees North latitude. Still, the result drew
public attention and a number of speculative articles about Earth’s
coming ice age appeared in newspapers and magazines. |
 |
|
 |
But other scientists forecasted global warming. Russian
climatologist Mikhail Budyko had also observed the three-decade cooling
trend. Nevertheless, he published a paper in 1967 in which he predicted
the cooling would soon switch to warming due to rising human emissions
of carbon dioxide. Budyko’s paper and another paper published in 1975 by
Veerabhadran Ramanathan caught Hansen’s attention. Ramanathan pointed
out that human-made chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs) are particularly
potent greenhouse gases, with as much as 200 times the heat-retaining
capacity of carbon dioxide. Because people were adding CFCs to the lower
atmosphere at an increasing rate, Ramanathan expressed concern that
these new gases would eventually add to Earth’s greenhouse effect and
cause our world to warm. (Because CFCs also erode Earth’s protective
ozone layer, their use was mostly abolished in 1989 with the signing of
the Montreal Protocol.)
The notion that humans could override nature and force the globe to
warm intrigued Hansen. “It had been known for more than a century that
increasing carbon dioxide could have an effect on global temperature,”
Hansen said (referring to the pioneering work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius in the 1800s). But global warming in the near future? That was another matter.
Hansen returned his attention to the physics equations he’d played
with almost 10 years earlier. Collaborating with Andy Lacis, a colleague
at NASA, he built a simple climate model to simulate how changes in the
atmosphere cause Earth’s average temperature to change over time.
Hansen and Lacis tweaked the inputs to simulate the cumulative influence
of all known human-made greenhouse gases except carbon dioxide
(including CFCs, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone) to see if their net
effect could even be felt on a global scale in the climate system. To
their surprise, Hansen’s team found that the warming effect of all those
gases added together is comparable to the warming effect of carbon
dioxide alone.
|
|
Initial efforts to
observe Earth’s temperature were limited to the Northern Hemisphere,
and they showed a cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 (jagged line).
Scientists estimated the relative effects of carbon dioxide (warming,
top curve) and aerosols (cooling, bottom curve) on climate, but did not
have enough data to make precise predictions. (Graph from Mitchell,
1972.)
|
 |
The simple model also allowed Hansen to simulate the
climate impact of Mount Agung’s eruption 15 years after the event. The
model indicated that loading the atmosphere with volcanic aerosols
should have caused a global cooling—a prediction that agreed pretty well
with observed temperature data.
The model demonstrated that both human and natural
activities could force climate to change. But Hansen knew that natural
forcings, like volcanic eruptions or changes in the Sun’s activity, tend
to go up and down over a long period of time whereas the human forcing
from greenhouse gas emissions was steadily increasing.
“It became clear that human-produced greenhouse gases should become a
dominant forcing and even exceed other climate forcings, such as
volcanoes or the Sun, at some point in the future,” Hansen observed.
How soon would the human forcing begin to dominate? No one knew. |
|
In 1981, NASA
scientists predicted the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on global
temperatures between 1950 and 2100 based on different scenarios for
energy growth rates and energy source. If energy use stayed constant at
1980 levels (scenario 3, bottom lines), temperatures were predicted to
rise just over 1°C. If energy use grew moderately (scenario 2, middle
lines), warming would be 1–2.5 °C. Fast growth (scenario 1, top lines)
would cause 3–4°C of warming. In each scenario, the warming was
predicted to be less if some of the energy was supplied by non-fossil
(renewable) fuels instead of coal-based, synthetic fuels (synfuels).
(Graph from Hansen et al., 1981.)
|
 |
| |
To find out, Hansen would
need real-world data on a global scale. He requested data tapes from Roy
Jenne, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was widely
recognized in the 1970s as having the best weather dataset in the world.
Of course, there remained the problem that the weather stations
supplying Jenne’s dataset were rather sparse compared to the vastness of
Earth’s surface.
|
|
To test his
climate model, Hansen calculated the cooling effect of Mount Agung’s
eruption (dotted line) and compared the results with real-world
temperature measurements (solid line). Despite its simplicity, the model
accurately reflected the dip in tropical temperatures caused by the
eruption. (Graph from Hansen et al., 1978.)
|
| |
 |
| |
“The lack of any global temperature
analysis [for Earth] did not seem right to me,” Hansen recalled. Drawing
from his previous work in estimating the average planetary surface
temperature of Venus, he knew that if scientists had measurements from
as many places on another planet as were available from Jenne’s dataset
they would not hesitate to estimate Earth’s global temperature. He
decided to try.
At the outset Hansen knew that weather fluctuations would introduce
short-term temperature anomalies into the weather station dataset that
are not the same thing as climate change. But he reasoned that by taking
averages over several years, and appropriately “weighting” the weather
stations’ data, it should be possible to determine meaningful
temperature changes over longer time periods. In the mid-1970s, he hired
Jeremy Barberra, a New York University undergraduate student at the
time, to automate the processing of Jenne’s dataset.
They decided to process the data to produce average temperature
changes, and not absolute temperature. “If you focus your analysis on
temperature change, and not on determining absolute temperature values,
then the station coverage is adequate,” Hansen explained. “What matters
is the long-term mean over large scales, not single measurements from
individual stations.”
The success of Hansen’s and Barberra’s approach depended on the
principle that temperature anomalies have a much larger scale than
absolute temperature. Consider a mountain on which it can be much cooler
on one side than the other. This example illustrates how absolute
temperature patterns can vary sharply over relatively short distances.
On the other hand, temperature anomalies are typically large-scale
events driven by Rossby Waves. Rossby Waves
are slow-moving waves in the ocean or atmosphere, driven from west to
east by the force of Earth spinning. We see such waves in the atmosphere
as large-scale meanders of the mid-latitude jet stream.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/Images/seviri_water_vapor_720p_best.mov
|
|
Weather
stations (red dots) are scattered unevenly across the globe. They are
especially sparse in Africa and over the oceans. Before scientists could
be confident in global temperature records, Hansen needed to
demonstrate that widely spaced observations captured global temperature
trends accurately. (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on data from the National Climatic Data Center.) |
| |
“If it is an unusually warm winter in New York, it is
probably also warm in Washington, D.C., for example,” Hansen explained.
“At high- and mid-latitudes Rossby Waves are the dominant cause of
short-term temperature variations. And since those are fairly long waves
we didn’t think we needed a station at every one degree of separation.”
A station at every 1 degree would mean a station roughly every 80
kilometers (at mid-latitudes). But in a 1987 paper appearing in the Journal of Geophysical Review,
Hansen and Sergei Lebedeff demonstrated that the temperature readings
of weather stations within 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) of one another
are highly correlated. The close correlation meant they could map global
temperature changes over time despite the fact that weather stations
are widely spaced and located mainly on continents and islands.
Here’s basically how their approach works: For each center point in a
global grid of 1-degree boxes they let all weather station data within a
1,200-kilometer radius influence the estimated temperature change at
that point. They gave greatest “weight” to the station closest to that
point; for all other stations within that radius, they let the weighting
fall off linearly with distance, all the way to a weighting of zero for
stations 1,200 kilometers away or farther. “Again, our objective was
not to determine the precise temperature of individual stations, but to
produce a global-scale map of temperature change,” Hansen emphasized.
“We were interested in tracking global climate patterns, not local
weather variations.”
In their 1981 analysis, published in the journal Science,
Hansen’s team reported finding that, overall, Earth’s average
temperature rose by about 0.4°C for the period from 1880 to 1978. There
was roughly 0.1°C of global cooling from 1940-1970. This cooling
was less than what Mitchell had found earlier due to the fact that
Hansen’s team was now using global data, and not just data from a swath
around the Northern Hemisphere. Just as Budyko had predicted, Hansen
found that Earth’s cooling trend swung back in the warming direction
around 1970 and has been warming ever since. Moreover, Hansen noted, the
warming trend observed in real-world data is consistent with his (and
others’) global climate model outputs in their 100-year simulations. |
|
Absolute temperatures can vary a lot even over short distances, but temperature anomalies
usually affect a large region. Most week-to-week temperature
variability is driven by Rossby Waves. These waves are easy to see in
the looping motions of the jet stream. In this animation, Rossby Waves
spiral from left to right toward Europe in the Northern Hemisphere and
South Africa in the Southern Hemisphere. The scale of these waves is so
large that weather stations separated by 1,000 kilometers or more
adequately record the temperature anomalies they produce. (Double-click
to pause or replay animation.) (NASA animation by Robert Simmon, based
on SEVIRI data copyright EUMETSAT.)
|
 |
Since 1978, global warming has become even more
apparent. Over the last 30 years, Hansen’s analysis reveals that Earth
warmed another 0.5°C, for a total warming of 0.9°C since 1880.
|
|
The first reliable
global measurements of temperature from NASA, published by Hansen and
his colleagues in 1981, showed a modest warming from 1880 to 1980, with
only a slight dip in temperatures from 1940 to 1970. (Graph adapted from
Hansen et al. 1981.)
|
 |
| |
“To questions about whether this
warming is natural or just a fluctuation, the answer has become clear:
the world is getting warmer,” Hansen stated. “This fact agrees so well
with what we calculate with our global climate model that I am confident
we are looking at warming that is mainly due to increasing human-made
greenhouse gases.”
|
|
Since 1980,
global surface temperatures have increased sharply, the Earth’s response
to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide. (NASA graph adapted from Goddard Institute for Space Studies data.) |
|
The Data and the Details
|
| |
Some nagging questions remained for
Hansen and his colleagues. Citing issues such as stations located too
close to paved surfaces, stations located in urban areas that are known
to be warmer than rural regions, and stations located in developing
nations where data collection methods may be unreliable, critics argued
that any of these problems could throw off an individual station’s
temperature readings. Don’t such concerns cast a shadow of doubt on the
NOAA weather station data?
Initially, perhaps, but not after the data have been carefully tested
in several ways. First, Hansen’s team (and others) finds good
agreement of the weather station data with “proxy” data sets that are
sensitive to surface temperature changes—such as the rate at which
glaciers are receding, or subsurface temperature measurements in
boreholes drilled down into the ground. (Scientists can infer surface
temperature change from underground temperatures based on equations that
describe how heat diffuses through the ground over time.) The results
in thousands of remote locations around the world agree well with the
surface temperature measurements.
Second, Hansen’s team “cleans” the weather station data by finding
and filtering out flawed data entries. Specifically, they apply a
computer algorithm that checks each data point for temperature readings
that are very significantly higher or lower than average for a given
location at that time of year. Whenever such an anomaly is flagged, the
algorithm compares those data to data from nearby stations to see if
they show a similar anomaly. If so, then the data in question are kept;
if not, or if there are no nearby stations for comparison, then the
data are thrown away. |
|
|
 |
His team also modifies the data from stations located
in densely populated areas by removing the long-term bias of these
“urban heat islands.” The team uses satellite data to determine if a
given station is in an urban or near-urban location. If so, then the
team uses the nearest rural stations to determine the long-term trend at
the urban site. If there are no rural neighbors, then Hansen’s team
throws out the urban station data.
|
|
Bad data are cleaned from the NASA global temperature record by first looking for outliers:
months when the temperature at a station is much higher or lower than
the average for that time of year. The monthly temperature record for
Linyi, China, in 1932 (red dots; June data is missing) shows that
September was 5.3° C warmer than average. The unusual data point was
compared to nearby stations. Since some of those stations were also
exceptionally warm, the data point was retained. If nearby stations do
not confirm the anomaly, the team does not use the data. (Graph by
Robert Simmon, based on data from the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data.) |
| |
 |
| |
One lesson to be learned
here is weather science and climate science are quite different: weather
is concerned with what conditions are like at a given location and
time, whereas climate is concerned with what conditions are like over
large regions, or over the entire globe, and for a long period of time.
That explains why climate scientists are not as interested in any given
reading for an individual station as they are in 5-year and 10-year
blocks of time for the entire planet.
Hansen acknowledged there may be flaws in the weather station data.
“But that doesn’t mean you give up on the science, and that you can’t
draw valid conclusions about the nature of Earth’s temperature change,”
he asserted. |
|
Weather stations are screened for potential bias from urban heat islands
by comparing station locations with maps of urbanization. Measurements
from nearby stations in rural areas (gray) are used to correct urban
station data for warming due to the heat island effect. If no rural
neighbors are available for comparison, data from urban (dark blue) and peri-urban (blue) stations are left out of the global average calculation. (Map by Robert Simmon, based on data from NOAA.) |
From A Dimmer Past to a Brighter Future?
|
| |
Of greater concern to Hansen than
global warming skeptics is the problem of global warming itself. If
greenhouse gases are to blame then why did Earth’s average temperature
cool from 1940-1970? And why has the rate of global warming accelerated
since 1978? Hansen’s answers to these questions brought him full
circle to where he began his investigation more than 40 years ago.
“I think the cooling that Earth experienced through the middle of the
twentieth century was due in part to natural variability,” he said.
“But there’s another factor made by humans which probably contributed,
and could even be the dominant cause: aerosols.” |
|
|
| |
 |
| |
In addition to greenhouse
gas emissions, human emissions of particulate matter are another
significant influence on global temperature. But whereas greenhouse
gases force the climate system in the warming direction, aerosols force
the system in the cooling direction because the airborne particles
scatter and absorb incoming sunlight. “Both greenhouse gases and
aerosols are created by burning fossil fuels,” Hansen said, “but the
aerosol effect is complicated because aerosols are distributed
inhomogeneously [unevenly] while greenhouse gases are almost uniformly
spaced. So you can measure greenhouse gas abundance at one place, but
aerosols require measurements at many places to understand their
abundance.”
After World War II, the industrial economies of Europe and the United
States were revving up to a level of productivity the world had never
seen before. To power this large-scale expansion of industry, Europeans
and Americans burned an enormous quantity of fossil fuels (coal, oil,
and natural gas). In addition to carbon dioxide, burning fossil fuel
produces particulate matter—including soot and light-colored sulfate
aerosols. Hansen suspects the relatively sudden, massive output of
aerosols from industries and power plants contributed to the global
cooling trend from 1940-1970. |
|
Pollution from
factories, cars, airplanes, home furnaces, and power plants form
aerosols—tiny particles suspended in the air. These particles reflect
and absorb sunlight, slightly cooling the Earth’s surface. (Photograph
©2007 Señor Codo.) |
| |
“That’s my suggestion,
though it’s still not proven,” he said. “There is a nice record of
sulfates in Greenland ice cores that shows this type of particle was
peaking in the atmosphere around 1970. And then the ice core record
shows a rapid decline in sulfates, right about the time nations began
regulating their emission.” (Sulfates cause acid rain and other health
and environmental problems.)
In 2007, Michael Mischenko, of NASA GISS, published a paper in the journal Science
in which he reported tropospheric aerosols have indeed declined
slightly over the last 30 years. The net effect is that more sunlight
passes through the atmosphere, slightly brightening the surface. This
increased exposure to sunlight could partially account for the increase
in surface temperature that Mischenko and Hansen observed over the same
time span.
|
|
Sulfur trapped
in the Greenland Ice Sheet records the presence of reflective sulfate
aerosols downwind of the United States and Canada. Emissions of the
pollutants that form sulfate aerosols rose sharply in the United States
and Europe during and after World War II. This rise may be responsible
for the Northern Hemisphere cooling from 1940–1970. By the 1980s, oil
embargos and environmental controls had reduced sulfate pollution in
North America, but carbon dioxide continued to build up in the
atmosphere. (Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from McConnell et al., NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program.) |
 |
| |
Over the course of the
twentieth century, Hansen and other climate scientists estimate aerosols
may have offset global warming by as much as 50 percent by reducing
the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. Scientists call this
phenomenon “global dimming,” although the change was too gradual and too
slight to be perceived by the human eye. (Aerosols’ dimming potential
has been observed, of course, after dramatic events like the Agung
Volcano eruption that Hansen noticed during the lunar eclipse of
December 1963.)
Hansen describes the global dimming effect of human-emitted
aerosols as a “Faustian bargain”—a deal with the devil. “Eventually you
get to a point where you don’t want aerosols in the atmosphere because
they’re harmful to human health, harmful to agriculture, and harmful to
natural resources,” he stated. “So in the U.S. and much of Europe,
we’ve been reducing aerosol emissions.”
But we haven’t seen a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions. Indeed, humans’ use of fossil fuels rose rapidly (about 5
percent per year) from the period after World War II until 1973. After
the oil embargo and price shock of oil in 1973, annual average
consumption continued to increase, but at a slower pace (between 1.5 and
2 percent per year). A byproduct of that rising fossil fuel
consumption has been a corresponding rise in carbon dioxide emission.
Because greenhouse gases reside in the atmosphere for decades, while
aerosols usually wash out over a span of days to weeks, the warming
influence of greenhouse gases gradually won out.
“For much of the twentieth century, both types of human emissions
were on nearly equal footing, and aerosols were able to compete with
greenhouse gases,” Hansen said. But that balance has tilted
increasingly in favor of greenhouse gases in the last 30 years. Today,
Hansen’s team estimates the human forcing from greenhouse gases to be
about 3 watts per square meter (warming) and the forcing from aerosols
to be about minus 1.5 watts per square meter (cooling). Hansen sees
these trends as very likely to lead to what he calls “dangerous human
interference” with the climate system.
“I think action [to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] is needed
urgently, because we are on the precipice of a climate system ‘tipping
point’,” Hansen concluded. “I believe the evidence shows with
reasonable clarity that the level of additional global warming that
would put us into dangerous territory is at most 1°C.” |
|
Satellite observations of aerosol optical thickness
(how greatly aerosols reduce the intensity of sunlight reaching the
surface) show that aerosol concentrations have decreased since 1991
(green line). Prior to that, they had been rising slightly (blue line).
In addition to the long-term trends of human-made aerosols, the graph
shows the occurrence of large volcanic eruptions like El Chichón in 1982
and Mount Pinatubo in 1991. These natural events produce large spikes
in aerosol concentrations, but their impact is short-lived. (Graph
adapted from Mishchenko et al., 2007)
|
| |
 |
| |
If we follow a
‘business-as-usual’ course, Hansen predicts, then at the end of the
twenty-first century we will find a planet that is 2-3°C warmer than
today, which is a temperature Earth hasn’t experienced since the middle
Pliocene Epoch about three million years ago, when sea level was roughly
25 meters higher than it is today.
[ Editor’s Note:Editor's note: The NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
site contains additional discussion, sample maps and graphs, and links
to the programs used by Hansen’s team to process the surface temperature
data.]
- References
- Budyko, M. (1972). The Future Climate. Eos, 53, 868–74.
- Hansen, J.E., Wang, W.-C., and Lacis, A. A. (1978). Mount Agung eruption provides test of a global climatic perturbation. Science, 199, 1065–1068, doi:10.1126/science.199.4333.1065.
- Hansen, J., Johnson, D. , Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind,
D., and Russell, G. (1981). Climate impact of increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957–966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
- Hansen, J.E., and Lebedeff, S. (1987). Global trends of measured surface air temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 13345-13372.
- Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D.
Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl (2001. A closer look at United
States and global surface temperature change. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 23947–23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.
- Hansen, J.E., and Sato, M. (2001). Trends of measured climate forcing agents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 14778–14783, doi:10.1073/pnas.261553698.
- Lacis, A., Hansen, J., Lee, P. , Mitchell, T., and Lebedeff, S. (1981). Greenhouse effect of trace gases, 1970-1980. Geophysical Research Letters, 8, 1035–1038.
- Mishchenko, M. I., Geogdzhayev, I.V., Rossow, W. B., Cairns, B. ,
Carlson, B. E., Lacis, A. A., Liu, L., and Travis, L.D. (2007).
Long-term satellite record reveals likely recent aerosol trend. Science, 315, 1543, doi:10.1126/science.1136709.
- Mitchell, J. M. (1972) The Natural Breakdown of the Present Interglacial and its Possible Intervention by Human Activities. Quarternary Research, 2, 436–445.
- Ramanathan, V. (1975). Greenhouse effect due to chlorofluorocarbons: climatic implications. Science, 190, 50–52.
- Ramanathan, V. (2006). Bjerknes Lecture: Global Dimming and its Masking Effect on Global Warming. Eos, 87(52), Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract A23D-01.
- Wang, W.-C., Yung, Y. L., Lacis, A. A., Mo, T., and Hansen, J. E.
(1976). Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbation of trace gases.
Science, 194, 685–690, doi:10.1126/science.194.4266.685.
- Further Reading
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Summary for Policymakers, A Report of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers, A Report of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
- Lindsey, Rebecca, ed. (2007).Global Warming Questions & Answers. NASA’s Earth Observatory.
- Riebeek, Holli (2007). Global Warming. NASA’s Earth Observatory.
- U.S. Climate Change Science Program. (2006). Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere. Accessed April 13, 2007.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Climate Change. Accessed March 22, 2007.
- Weart, Spencer (2007). The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics.
|
|
This map shows
the difference in surface temperature in 2006 compared to the average
from 1951 to 1980. Most of the globe is anomalously warm, with the
greatest temperature increases in the Arctic Ocean, Antarctic Peninsula,
and central Asia. NASA’s effort to track temperature changes will help
societies evaluate the consequences of global climate change. (Map based
on data from NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis.) |
NASA Earth Observatory:
Ricardo M Marcenaro - Facebook
Operative blogs of The Solitary Dog:
solitary dog sculptor:
http://byricardomarcenaro.blogspot.com
Solitary Dog Sculptor I:
http://byricardomarcenaroi.blogspot.com
Para:
comunicarse conmigo,
enviar materiales para publicar,
propuestas:
marcenaroescultor@gmail.com
For:
contact me,
submit materials for publication,
proposals:
marcenaroescultor@gmail.com
Diario La Nación
Argentina
Cuenta Comentarista en el Foro:
Capiscum
My blogs are an open house to all cultures, religions and countries. Be a follower if you like it, with this action you are building a new culture of tolerance, open mind and heart for peace, love and human respect.
Thanks :)
Mis blogs son una casa abierta a todas las culturas, religiones y países. Se un seguidor si quieres, con esta acción usted está construyendo una nueva cultura de la tolerancia, la mente y el corazón abiertos para la paz, el amor y el respeto humano.
Gracias :)
|
Comments (0)
Publicar un comentario