More Detail On The Arctic Catastrophe

Over the past two years there has been a large increase in 1.5+ meter thick ice in the Arctic, and the thick ice has shifted nearly 1,000 miles to the west – making it safe from winter winds pushing it out into the Atlantic. Both of these facts spell complete disaster for Arctic death spiral alarmists.

GrowthOf1.5MeterIceSince2012ScreenHunter_1934 Aug. 14 09.04

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to More Detail On The Arctic Catastrophe

  1. philjourdan says:

    The Arctic is merely the hairline of Gaia. It is Gaia that hates alarmists.

  2. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Ice over 1m thick should now and for all time be called “Serreze Ice”.

  3. Jim Hunt says:

    You realise I’m gonna have to quibble with you on this one Tony?! What exactly are you comparing there, and why is it 1.5 m this time when it was 1.0 m last time?

    Is that supposed to be August 14th 2012 versus August 14th 2014?

    • David Jay says:

      Uh, Jim –

      The legends from 2012 and 2014 are identical. It is everything over 1.5m (i.e. teal, green, yellow, orange, red, maroon taken together). The area covered by those colors is much larger in today than 2 years ago, and it has expanded westward.

      Is this really that hard???

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Uh, you tell me David.

        The dates are missing from Tony’s animation, unlike on this visualisation which I prepared earlier today. Wanna play “spot the difference” with me?

        • FergalR says:

          Jim,
          Nothing I can find in HYCOM’s archive looks remotely like your image. I suspect some foolish adult left you alone with a box of crayons and in a fit of mourning over your dead religion you just made it up then JPEG’d it to death to hide your tracks.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Evidently you don’t know your way around HYCOM’s archive very well Fergal!

          Perhaps some foolish adult left Steve/Tony alone with a box of crayons?

        • Anything is possible says:

          Either there was an extraordinary recovery of Arctic Ice between 12H and 18H yesterday, or Jim Hunt has posted a fraudulent chart.

          I’m betting on the latter…….

        • D. Self says:

          Jim, Looks like your crayons are only coloring ice 3.0 m thick or more. There is lot of white on your chart.

        • geran says:

          Jim, the polar bears are drowning due to the huge ice melt. If you want to save them, get your canoe and head up there quickly.

          (I’ve heard the palm trees and sandy beaches are incredible.)

          Let us know what you find….

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Anything is possible – It seems you’re more than happy to have the wool pulled over your eyes? Perhaps only when it keeps you snug and warm, cocooned inside your preconceived ideas?

          My chart is not fraudulent, so where does that leave Steve/Tony’s? Is he misleading you by accident or by design?

        • Caleb says:

          Jim, why did you change the color code from the one used at the site? Why do you color all ice below roughly nine feet thick white? Why doesn’t your map include a key, so that people can see that what is blue in your map is green in our hosts map?

          I would say you are the one who is generating a false impression. To insinuate our host is doing so generates a second false impression. You need to stop doing this. It is bad for you.

        • philjourdan says:

          I caught him doing that several weeks ago, so now just ignore his posts. A sycophant is one thing. A liar something else.

        • tom0mason says:

          Jim,
          Where are the error bars on your graphic?

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Caleb – I didn’t do any of those things that you accuse me of. If you don’t believe me here’s my visualisation with the color key included. Where are our gracious host’s equivalents?

        • Scott says:

          Jim – I’d be curious to see the 2012 equivalent of your figure.

          -Scott

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Scott – As you have probably gathered by now I am very curious to see Steve/Tony’s 2012 visualisation in all its glory, complete with a scale attached etc.

          The ball is in his/their court now!

        • Caleb says:

          Jim,
          Now that you have posted your key, it is obvious a meter of ice somehow has been removed from the map the Navy posted here: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnowcast.gif

          Can you explain the missing meter? Is there something you forgot to tell us? If that missing meter was not subtracted by the Navy for some reason you are not telling us, and someone has been meddling with their maps, I don’t imagine the Navy will be very happy when word gets back to them.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Phil says:

          “I caught him doing that several weeks ago, so now just ignore his posts. A sycophant is one thing. A liar something else.”

          Presumably you’re referring to yours truly rather than Steve/Tony? When and where was that exactly? Do you have any evidence to back up your libelous accusations? Possibly even a link?

        • Scott says:

          Jim,

          I agree it would be nice to see the uncropped images. That said, since you’ve done your analysis for 2014, why don’t you show the equivalent for 2012?

          -Scott

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Caleb – Believe it or not I have discussed the US Navy’s Arctic sea ice models with none other than Rear Admiral Jon White. I recently got their permission to publish this interesting recording of a personal forecast of his not so very long ago:

          http://econnexus.org/the-economist-being-economical-with-the-truth-about-climate-change/#Stefan

          Scott – Since you asked so nicely:

          Please bear in mind that the Navy’s models are updated periodically. In all the circumstances I cannot help but wonder which version(s) Steve/Tony used to construct his/their initial animation?

        • Caleb says:

          Jim, you have failed to explain where the missing meter went. It only makes matters worse when you post a map from 2012 where the meter isn’t missing.

          Over and over people point out that your map differs from the map the Navy posts here: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnowcast.gif

          Over and over people point out a meter is missing.

          Why are the maps so different? Where did the missing meter go? Please don’t change the subject to who you know and what sort of bicycle or tricycle you drive. Where is the missing meter?

          Tricks are not tricky when they are transparent.

      • Scott says:

        Hi Jim,

        Hmm, so your 2012 result is nearly the same as SG’s. But clearly your 2014 version is vastly different. The source for your 2012 image is:

        The nearly equivalent (the 08/16/14 model results for 08/14/14 are not yet available) 2014 image is:

        This 2014 image is nearly identical to what SG shows, as is the 2012 image. So I’d conclude that SG is performing as apples-to-apples of a comparison as can be done considering the change from version 3.5 to 3.9 in the 2012-to-2014 date change. But unlike the 2012 image, the 2014 one is very different from your 2014 version. I’m not an expert with the directories in question, so I could not find your version to understand the difference in what it is showing.

        So my question is, what is the source of your 2014 image, and is an apples-to-apples comparison with your 2012?

        Thanks,

        -Scott

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Caleb/Scott – Over and over other people on here keep changing the subject.

          Over and over other people on here keep calling us names whilst betraying their own ignorance about the US Navy’s Arctic sea ice models and simultaneously failing to do their own research amongst the wide range of Arctic facts and figures helpfully provided by “Snow White” and I over at:

          http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/

        • Scott says:

          Jim –

          The subject is 2014 vs 2012. How have I changed the subject?

          And when did I call you names? When and where was that exactly? Do you have any evidence to back up your libelous accusations?

          -Scott

        • Jim Hunt says:

          I seem to have inadvertently offended you Scott? My apologies if so.

          You have been exceedingly polite, up to now at least! When I said “other people on here”, I meant “people other than Caleb, Scott and I”

        • Scott says:

          Hi Jim,

          Ah, I see that you used a generic plural for the name calling and didn’t call me out personally. This was my mistake, and I apologize.

          Back to the topic then, which is 2014 vs 2012. SG’s 2012-2014 comparison is an apples-to-apples one, whereas your 2012-2014 one is not. Can you show your 2012 equivalent of your 2014 plot so we can see if SG’s assertion of 2014 having more 1.5+ m ice than 2012 is invalid when using the metric you posted?

          -Scott

    • catweazle666 says:

      Jim, patronising little chap, aren’t you? Are so unsure of your ground that youy cannot make a single post that doesn’t insult the intelligence and knowledge of every other poster? It doesn’t do one damn thing for your credibility, don’t you understand that?

      Am I correct in guessing that you are an ologist of some description, or, if you have any scientific training – which is unclear – it is in one of the Post-Normal varieties which don’t bother with such trivial details as facts and error bars – are you a disciple of Ravetz, perhaps?

      It seems you have little or no respect for standard scientific methodology, this is more your conception of the scientific method, here is Mike Hulme[1] on the subject:

      Climate change also teaches us to rethink what we really want for ourselves… mythical ways of thinking about climate change reflect back to us truths about the human condition…

      The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identifies and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us…Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.

      …climate change has become an idea that now travels well beyond its origins in the natural sciences…climate change takes on new meanings and serves new purposes… climate change has become “the mother of all issues”, the key narrative within which all environmental politics – from global to local – is now framed…Rather than asking “how do we solve climate change?” we need to turn the question around and ask: “how does the idea of climate change alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations…?”

      http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

      [1] Professor of Climate and Culture in the Department of Geography at King’s College London. He was formerly professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hulme

  4. Truthseeker says:

    As far as the Artic is concerned, isn’t every direction “south”?

  5. Caleb says:

    This animation is an excellent comparison, and one can learn a lot simply by watching it and doing some thinking. I really appreciate the work that went into producing it.

    The thing I notice that hasn’t been mentioned is the amount of thick ice that has blown up against the north coast of Svalbard and Franz Josef Land. This is interesting because those waters were ice-free in the dead of last winter, (due to the winter weather-pattern that brought so much mild air rushing up over western Europe, and gave them a break from severe winters as the USA got its turn.) In other words, that is not ice that formed there last winter, it is ice that drifted there this summer.

    Where did it come from? That ice includes the weather station attached to the (unfortunately) destroyed North Pole Camera, which at last report was at 83.367°N, 17.528°E. Most years the Camera and its weather station head south along the meridian into Fram Strait. This year, if you look at the uncolored ice down in Fram Strait, you’ll notice less ice is being flushed out down the east coast of Greenland, to melt in the North Atlantic. While this “missing ice” makes the “extent” graph lower, it represents ice that is being retained, rather than flushed out and melted.

    As our host accurately points out, ice north of Svalbard and Franz Josef Land is vulnerable to winter winds, and being flushed south. We’ll have to wait and see what happens this year. The only year I can find that a North Pole Camera went east was 2006, and when winter came in 2006 that camera turned west and went back towards Fram Strait and was flushed out as part of the lead-up to the low-ice-summer of 2007. However if this particular weather station gets much farther east it might be the first to pass east of Svalbard, or run aground on the north coast of Svalbard.

    All this goes to show you how much is dependent on how the ice drifts. Second in importance is how much milder water comes north under the ice. Air temperature and all the fuss about “albedo” is a distant third.

    O-Buoy 10, which has a camera, is located at the edge of the 3-4 feet thick ice north of Alaska, The animation shows those waters had no ice within a hundred miles, only two summers ago. This summer the camera shows not only that the ice is failing to crack up (though it still might,) but the melt-water pools are scattered and keep freezing over, and there has even been snow (which has a very high albedo, if you care about such things.) I keep an eye on that camera’s view at http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/arctic-sea-ice-melt-the-death-spirals-debunking/

    If you have eleven minutes to spare, there is a movie made of all last summer’s pictures taken by O-Buoy 7. It gives you something to compare this summer with. It is a little annoying because the ice got slushy and the camera gradually tilted. You may get a crick in your neck, if your head tilts as you watch. Finally you spend around four minutes basically looking at your feet, but the redeeming thing is that the ice cracks up and you are looking at the edge of the water. Then you fall in. You are blown south and bob about in ice-free waters briefly, before the refreeze swallows you up in advancing ice, and you get to see winter set in. http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy7/movie

    Last year I thought O-Buoy 7 was showing me how much more ice there was in waters that had been ice-free the summer before, but this summer makes last summer look warm, north of Alaska.

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Caleb – Here’s an O-Buoy 7 movie I hurriedly put together in October last year, that also shows winter setting in. Since you’re evidently an “Arctic sea ice nutter” too I’d be very interested to hear your comments:

      • Caleb says:

        In that particular case you apparently did catch a reporter making a mistake. He likely took a quick glance at an extent map, and didn’t dig deeper. Some of those maps show all “extent”, even down to 15% ice and 85% water, as solid white. (For example, this map: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_extent_hires.png )

        Because the map shows pure white, the reporter likely jumped to the wrong conclusion that the ice was “Unbroken.” Then it is likely a week passed between when he researched and the piece was printed, and further ice melted during that week.

        It is not hard to catch the MSM making such mistakes about sea-ice. Either they are in too much of a hurry, or are lazy, or perhaps have an agenda. The best thing to do is to gently and politely educate them to what the actual facts are. In some cases they really do not know that what is solid white on the map can be as much as 85% open water in reality. Some actually appreciate you doing the research they don’t have the time (or are too lazy) to do.

        But make sure you educate them with actual facts. If you feed them bull, and they catch you at it, they never forget it and very rarely forgive it, even if you confess and apologize.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          I have made it my mission in life to educate all and sundry with actual facts!

          If David Rose appreciates me doing all this research on his behalf he has been remarkably backward in coming forward to convey his eternal gratitude 😦

        • squid2112 says:

          Seems to me you’ve made it your mission in life to be a dumbass…quite successfully it seems.

        • squid2112 says:

          Over on this side of the pond, we usually refer to folks like you as “Useful Idiots”.

        • Caleb says:

          Jim, I know all about people being backwards when it comes to coming forward. I write really good poetry, but all I need to do is raise my index finger and people jam the doorways in their hurry to leave. Their lack of gratitude hurts my feelings terribly, but I suppose I’ll muddle by somehow.

          In the end I suspect it is not we who deserve attention, but rather the Truth. As long as you stand by the actual facts you’ll do OK.

  6. Anything is possible says:

    Still waiting for Jim Hunt to post a SUBSTANTIVE response to the issues raised with his “visualization”……..

    • Jim Hunt says:

      How do you define “SUBSTANTIVE”?

      • squid2112 says:

        Would this help you?

        Definition of substantive (adj)

        sub·stan·tive

        with practical importance: having practical importance, value, or effect
        substantial: substantial in amount or quantity
        essential: relating to the substance of something
        synonyms: practically · functionally · applicably

        One would think that a “Surrealist programmer” (whatever the f#$ck that is) would be able to find these things for himself. Especially one that seems to aspire to be an engineer.

        as·pire

        intransitive verb
        1: to seek to attain or accomplish a particular goal

  7. cesium62 says:

    The navy provides gifs and animated gifs based on a couple of different ice models. See
    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/arctic.html
    and
    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/arctic.html

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gsd/espc/presentations/Posey_SeaIce_ESPC_20121107.pdf
    is a somewhat old slide show giving a bit of detail on the ARC model, and possibly suggesting that the GLB model is newer and was expected to be better.

    If you liked the two-snapshot animation at the top of this article, you’ll love

    The GLB version, which doesn’t extend back for a full year is at

    Here is the single day ARC snapshot:

    and the single day GLB snapshot

    As we can see in either model, the thick ice likes to hug the coast of Greenland and the Canadian archipelago. Ice that is moving “west” is also getting further from the north pole, and hence heading south into the Beaufort and Chuckchi seas. The Beaufort and Chuckchi are much more likely to fully melt most summers than the Canadian Archipelago and the central Artic. So while the thick ice may be safe from being pushed out through the Fram strait this winter, it is suffering this summer.

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Welcome Cesium! At long last, somebody in here who knows their Arctic onions.

      The next thing to note is that ACNFS changed from NOGAPS atmospheric forcing to NAVGEM in 2013. Which flavour do you suppose Steve/Tony utilised in the animation at the top of the thread? Wouldn’t it have been handy if the version numbers hadn’t been cropped?

  8. Anything is possible says:

    Still waiting……….

  9. Anything is possible says:

    OK, we now have the explanation.

    Would have saved a lot of confusion had Jim Hunt explained clearly what he had done in the first place instead of being a smart-ass about it.

    Are you related to Steven Mosher by any chance, Jim?

    • Crashex says:

      Jim Hunt, a.k.a. Snow White–the Ice Queen, is simply an agitator.

      The animation for this post compares apples-to-apples from the same computer model to make a point. That same fact can be verified by other sources. The actual thickness of the ice is not really known with precision because it’s a computer model estimated value, however, the recent increasing thickness and position are consistent for all apples-to-apples comparisons.

      The Ice Queen doesn’t like that point and so generates smoke by referencing a different model’s results [comparing apples-to-oranges] and lobbing irrelevant complaints about the material and taunting anyone who replies to him. He thinks he’s really smart and enlightened to the AGW “facts”; but is totally baffled by what has happened in the arctic over the last two years because it does fit his beliefs.

  10. Scott says:

    Jim –

    Twice I’ve asked you above to post a 2012 version of your image so we could see it. However, you haven’t responded. Perhaps you haven’t responded because you missed the requests since they were in subthreads, so I’ll ask you again right here with no subthreads, can you post a 2012-equivalent map of your earlier 2014 one?

    Thanks in advance,

    -Scott

    • Jim Hunt says:

      What do you mean by “a 2012 version of your image” then? I posted an image from 08/14/2012 quite some time ago (August 16, 2014 at 8:33 am to be precise). If you check the “GLB” links helpfully provided by Cesium you’ll no doubt notice that the Navy’s latest and greatest model doesn’t provide any snapshots that far back in time, if that’s what you’re getting at?

      Note also that ACNFS moved from NAVGEM 1.1 forcing to NAVGEM 1.2 in April this year. Trying to compare “apples with apples” across the years is fraught with difficulty.

      http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/

      • Scott says:

        That’s exactly what I’ve been getting at the entire time Jim. While Steve’s comparison might not be perfect, it’s at least a semblance of a comparison. The point of Steven’s post was 2012 vs 2014, and you post an image using a metric that didn’t exist in 2012 and can’t be used for comparison? Later in the tread, you say “Over and over other people on here keep changing the subject.” That’s interesting, given that you were the first to change the subject.

        When I asked for a 2012 version of your plot, you ignored me. When I asked for it again, you made a new graph using a different metric. When I pointed that out and asked for a comparison with like metrics, you ignored me twice before this third time, where you finally are honest and say there isn’t one. I find all this very difficult to reconcile with statements like “I have made it my mission in life to educate all and sundry with actual facts!”.

        -Scott

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Scott – What are the actual facts about the actual thickness of the sea ice in the Arctic as we speak?

          What is the relevance of Steve/Tony’s “imperfect comparison” of “imperfect numerical models” to the answer to that question?

          Were you around to witness in real time the “step change” in the metrics when ACNFS changed from NOGAPS to NAVGEM forcing?

          Why is it that all the Arctic sea ice “experts” in here, including our gracious host, were evidently unaware of the Global Ocean Forecast System until Cesium kindly brought it to their attention?

          http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/navy-transitions-global-ocean-forecast-system-for-public-use

          So many questions. So few answers!

        • Scott says:

          Jim, here’s another set of questions.

          Why did you repeatedly ignore my request for a 2012 version of your graphic?

          When you did produce a 2012-equivalent version, why did you use a different metric instead of the one requested? Evidently, it was you that was unaware that there was no 2012 version. Either that or you were being intentionally deceitful/fraudulent.

          Why would an “‘expert’ in here” that was unaware of GOFS have asked for a 2012 version?

          How do you define “facts about the actual thickness”? Are you aware of any metrics that show 2014 ice to not be in significantly better condition than 2012?

          For someone who has complained about the changing of subject, why do you avoid the main topic of the post?

          -Scott

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Scott – The first line of the OP reads as follows:

          “Over the past two years there has been a large increase in 1.5+ meter thick ice in the Arctic”

          I assume that’s the topic under discussion here?

          We’re all still waiting to see the version numbers on Steve/Tony’s graphics after numerous requests.

          You still haven’t answered my question about “step changes”. Neither has Steve/Tony.

          My graphic of August 14, 2014 at 8:36 pm doesn’t reveal “a large increase in 1.5+ meter thick ice in the Arctic”, does it?

          Who is it that’s avoiding the main topic of the post? It certainly isn’t me.

        • Scott says:

          Jim – how can a single plot from 2014 show ANY increase or decrease in ANY type of ice? That’s how you’re avoiding the topic.

          -Scott

        • Anything is possible says:

          h/t mjc

          Disclaimer: This 1/12° Global HYCOM+CICE system and web page are a demonstration and are not an operational product. NRL is providing the INFORMATION on an “as is” basis. NRL does not warrant or represent this INFORMATION is fit for any particular purpose, and NRL does not guarantee availability, service, or timely delivery of data.

          http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/skill.html

        • Scott says:

          Jim,

          To answer your step-change question, I did notice the step change when it happened and even cautioned a skeptic blogger to not make direct comparisons between the old and new sets too seriously when it did.

          Now my question. You posted a 2014 plot from a model that has no output from 2012, ignored my request for the 2012 equivalent twice, and then finally posted a 2012 result from a different model. When you did this were you (a) being intentionally deceitful, (b) ignorant of the model output you were working with, or (c) simply making an mistake?

          And back to the 2012 vs 2014 topic. Do you have any metric that shows both 2014 and 2012 results that shows 2014 ice not being in better condition than 2012?

          -Scott

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Good morning Scott (UTC),

        I didn’t ignore your request. After Steve/Tony ignored another one of my requests I posted a 2012 visualisation including the version number. I note that Steve/Tony continue to ignore all my requests for similar information.

        Perhaps I misunderstood what appears to be your question because ultimately it makes no sense. ACNFS version number changes, both major and minor, seem to take place with monotonous regularity. Maybe you can compare apples with apples on a day to day basis, but certainly not biennially.

        How do you define “better condition”? If the Gyre moves “thick ice” into the Beaufort where it suffers more melt than if it had stayed in the CAB is that “better” or “worse” overall?

        • Scott says:

          Jim Hunt says:
          August 19, 2014 at 6:55 am
          Good morning Scott (UTC),

          Perhaps I misunderstood what appears to be your question because ultimately it makes no sense. ACNFS version number changes, both major and minor, seem to take place with monotonous regularity. Maybe you can compare apples with apples on a day to day basis, but certainly not biennially.

          Hmm. Given that my request for a 2012/2014 comparison for your 2014 plot “makes no sense”, how does it “make sense” at all that you even posted such a 2014 plot? Were you ignorant of there not being a 2012 equivalent when you posted it or something?

          How do you define “better condition”? If the Gyre moves “thick ice” into the Beaufort where it suffers more melt than if it had stayed in the CAB is that “better” or “worse” overall?

          Choose your metric for “better” condition. UIUC area, an extent metric, PIOMAS, Navy models, a mix of any of them. You can use absolute numbers or the total melt for the season, I don’t care. Given that a lot of the ice is in the Beaufort this season and the text you just gave, you’d expect that we’d have lot a lot more ice this season than in 2012…is that true? Again, any metric.

          -Scott

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Scott – The “metrics” don’t really tell the whole story. Some non first year ice has certainly “moved west”. Meanwhile some has moved out towards the Atlantic leaving FYI at the pole. Here’s an ASCAT video, together with the end result by day 160 of 2014, after which the view from on high started to get rather misty!

          Will the end result of all that movement be good or bad for MYI by the time the refreeze begins?

  11. geran says:

    Jim, Jim, Jim—There you go again, with absolutely NO understanding of how hilarious you are. (And, I’m not just talking about your goofy photo.)

    Goddard used two sentences to state his point. You cannot dispute his point, so you ramble on endlessly, as if you believe you are making debate points in some type of argument. Goddard is not arguing with you, he is laughing at you. There’s a BIG difference.

    And, if you didn’t get his point, I’ll be glad to rephrase: “The Arctic sea ice has been making fools of Warmists (including Jim Hunt) for the last two years, and it appears it will get even worse for them.”

    Hope that helps.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s