Record Cold And Ice Growth Continuing In The Arctic, Accompanied By Record Fraud From The Press

2015-11-04-03-31-34

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Ice growth in Greenland continues at record levels this fall. The surface of Greenland has gained 200 billion tons of snow and ice in the last eight weeks. This has been accompanied by record cold weather approaching -60C.

2015-11-04-03-34-52

summit:status:weather

Arctic sea ice extent is at a ten year high for the date, after record growth.

2015-11-04-03-37-12

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

So how does the criminals in the press report on this? They say the exact opposite of what is going on.

2015-11-04-03-39-22

OMG… Greenland’s ice sheets are melting fast | Environment | The Guardian

Temperatures were -40C on the Greenland Ice sheet the day (October 27) that the New York Times wrote this article.

2015-11-04-03-41-24

Greenland Is Melting Away – The New York Times

Scientists have been recycling the same stories about Greenland Glaciers collapsing, generation after generation.

2015-10-27-14-43-482015-10-27-14-41-04

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – at Newspapers.com

It is all total nonsense, intended to get you to throw away your money and freedom. Even the most exaggerated claims of ice loss in Greenland would require 15,000 years for all the ice to melt.

About stevengoddard

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

55 Responses to Record Cold And Ice Growth Continuing In The Arctic, Accompanied By Record Fraud From The Press

  1. omnologos says:

    have you got the third graph but superimposed with the 1990-2013 mean and standard deviations please?

    • These aren’t my graphs. They are taken from the DMI web site.

      • Martin Smith says:

        You are still using the wrong graph, Steven. By now you know you are misleading your readers, so please correct it. You deleted this line: “Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page.” You must include the coastal zones, Steven. When you do, you get a more correct graph. This is the more correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

        As you can see on the more correct graph, the current sea ice extent remains 2 standard deviations below the mean. It means your title of this blog post is false. Below that graph is this statement, which you are deliberately ignoring: “The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”

        You are still trying to use the old plot, which the Denmark Meteorological Institute says is wrong. In fact, why not use the NSIDC graph, which uses the more common 15% base. It is found here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

        It also show the sea ice extent to be 2 standard deviations below the mean.

        • gator69 says:

          What makes 1979-2000 meaningful?

        • It is the correct graph, which shows the more meaningful measure of 30% ice. Your FUD is disgusting.

        • skeohane says:

          In manufacturing, 2 Std. Dev. below the mean is called ‘normal’.

        • gator69 says:

          And in Climastrology, 1979 is considered “normal”. Weird Science.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “What makes 1979-2000 meaningful?”

          The fact that 1979 was the bottom of the AMO cycle.

          We have just gone over the top of the AMO cycle..

          Arctic sea ice will now gradually start to increase year by year, and won’t it be fun watching the fraudulent claims of the AGW cultists get shriller and shriller as they do everything they can to keep twisting the reality to their agenda.

          You can see the effect of the AMO in many places up north..

          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/image_thumb6.png?w=404&h=312

        • AndyG55 says:

          Here is another graph that very clearly illustrates why the average dullard propaganda alarmista absolutely MUST start their reference period in the late 1970’s

        • AndyG55 says:

          Pretty uncanny match hey.
          Gees, maybe there’s a NATURAL CYCLE somewhere. ;-0

        • AndyG55 says:

          ps.. that’s just an eyeballed red line.

        • Gail Combs says:

          AndyG, those are a pretty good match for the ~88 year Gleissberg solar cycle. The earth should be coming off peak in the next five years or so.

          A few peer-reviewed papers just for Martin on the Gleissberg cycle and ‘the ~ 208 year-cyclicity, named de Vries or Suess cycle’

          This has Dr Feynman’s Sister Joan Feynman as co-author.
          Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River? “…We identify two characteristic timescales in the records that may be linked to solar variability: a period of about 88 years and one exceeding 200 years. We show that these timescales are present in the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time….”

          NASA pop sci write up of same paper:News | NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
          Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

          This is a nice study with active links to other papers.
          Strong evidence for the influence of solar cycles on a Late Miocene lake system revealed by biotic and abiotic proxies

          ….The Gleissberg cycle is one of the slightly longer solar cycles, probably modulating the Schwabe cycle (Wolf, 1862; Gleissberg, 1939). Firstly assumed to have a duration of 88-years, Ogurtsov et al. (2002) detected a characteristic split into a low-frequency band signal of 50–80 years and a high-frequency signal between 90 and 140 years….

          This is a new one for me.
          Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model

          ABSTRACT
          Many palaeoclimate records from the North Atlantic region show a pattern of rapid climate oscillations, the so-called Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a quasi-periodicity of ~1,470 years for the late glacial period1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain these rapid temperature shifts, including internal oscillations in the climate system and external forcing, possibly from the Sun7. But whereas pronounced solar cycles of ~87 and ~210 years are well known8, 9, 10, 11, 12, a ~1,470-year solar cycle has not been detected8. Here we show that an intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard–Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean in cycles of ~87 and ~210 years. We attribute the robust 1,470-year response time to the superposition of the two shorter cycles, together with strongly nonlinear dynamics and the long characteristic timescale of the thermohaline circulation…..

          And this one from Nature is a real goody:
          Paired oxygen isotope records reveal modern North American atmospheric dynamics during the Holocene

          ABSTRACT
          The Pacific North American (PNA) teleconnection has a strong influence on North American climate. Instrumental records and century-scale reconstructions indicate an accelerating tendency towards the positive PNA state since the mid-1850s, but much less is known about long-term PNA variability. Here we reconstruct PNA-like climate variability during the mid- and late Holocene using paired oxygen isotope records from two regions in North America with robust, anticorrelated isotopic response to the modern PNA. We identify mean states of more negative and positive PNA-like climate during the mid- and late Holocene, respectively. Superimposed on the secular change between states is a robust, quasi-200-year oscillation, which we associate with the de Vries solar cycle. These findings suggest the persistence of PNA-like climate variability throughout the mid- and late Holocene, provide evidence for modulation of PNA over multiple timescales and may help researchers de-convolve PNA pattern variation from other factors reflected in palaeorecords.

  2. sfx2020 says:

    Something I’ve noticed with scientific studies, papers and reports, is that due to the process, they are always behind the present.

  3. Martin Smith says:

    You are still using the wrong graph, Steven. By now you know you are misleading your readers, so please correct it. You deleted this line: “Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page.” You must include the coastal zones, Steven. When you do, you get a more correct graph. This is the more correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    As you can see on the more correct graph, the current sea ice extent remains 2 standard deviations below the mean. It means your title of this blog post is false. Below that graph is this statement, which you are deliberately ignoring: “The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”

    You are still trying to use the old plot, which the Denmark Meteorological Institute says is wrong. In fact, why not use the NSIDC graph, which uses the more common 15% base. It is found here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    It also show the sea ice extent to be 2 standard deviations below the mean.

    • Morgan in Sweden says:

      NSIDC: It is within 2 deviations, you better check more carefully next time…
      DMI: The grey area is 1 standard deviation not 2…

      • Martin Smith says:

        Ok, Morgan, it is nearly two standard deviations below the mean, which means Steven’s claim is wrong. Thanks for the tip on the Danish graph. However, it still indicates the current extent to be more than 1 standard deviation below the mean, which still means there is no record sea ice comeback.

        • ripatheism says:

          UH DUH… you know what you can do with your deviations…. your assumption he is misleading is disgusting….especially after the INCREDIBLE lies promoted by your “team”. Do you have input on the NASA study about Antarctica as well? Or the fact the shills knew the Ice shelf was nothing to do with climate? We were LIED TOO over and over and over again… the theory is now a hard shelled turd…it’s dead, give it up. And calling it theory is giving it too much credit…

        • AndyG55 says:

          A failed idea.. still born except for the massive funding used to artificially keep it squirming.

        • Martin Smith says:

          rip, I do have input on the NASA study about Antarctica, but it isn’t the subject of this thread, so I won’t fall for your troll. I will say I’m glad to see you throw in the towel so quickly.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gator, the mean you call meaningless is the one even Steven Goddard uses. The fact that the current level is nearly 2, or more than 1, standard deviations below the mean proves that Steven Goddard’s claim (as expressed in the title of his blog post) is false.

        • gator69 says:

          No dummy, he uses that graph with the meaningless mean already establsihed.

          What makes 1979-2000 meaningful?

      • gator69 says:

        Within two standard deviations of a meaningless mean.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator
          Martin wouldn’t know a Standard Deviation if it bit him on the ass.

          BYTB, Steven are you sure this isn’t David the Appalling?

          Sure sounds like him.

        • gator69 says:

          Martin Smith says:
          November 5, 2015 at 1:57 pm
          Gator, the mean you call meaningless is the one even Steven Goddard uses.

          I’m wondering who reads to him, and who takes his dictations. Whoever it is missed the second comment on the thread…

          stevengoddard says:
          November 4, 2015 at 11:30 am
          These aren’t my graphs. They are taken from the DMI web site.

          You cannot fix stupid.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, it is even harder to fix deliberate malicious lying for gain.

          We certainly have a great example of that problem siting in D.C. (District of Criminals.)

  4. Martin Smith says:

    Your comments about Greenland are also deceptive. The trend for the Greenland ice sheet is ver definitely down. It is shown in this graph from NOAA: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig3.3-tedesco.jpg

    • Martin Smith says:

      Sorry, the discussion of the Greenland trend is found here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

      • Menicholas says:

        Why not head over to Hot Whopper and peddle your lies there, Martin?
        People here are wise to your phony BS.
        You and the rest of the climate liars have been do your best to deceive the whole world for years and years, but now the entire warmista scam is falling apart.
        Every one in the world will know the truth soon, so you should maybe try a little CYA, instead of doubling down.

      • Based on the same incorrect gravity interpretations which NASA just debunked in Antarctica.

        • Dave1billion says:

          In addition, note the referenced article also relies on the MODIS data to claim record low albedo.

          The MODIS data were also very recently determined to be faulty. The lowered albedo detected by MODIS was due to sensor degradation rather than a darkening of the surface due to soot, volcanic dust, flying reindeer poop, etc.

          Based on these two CRITICAL flaws in the paper I do not think that this is a reference worthy of citing.

  5. eliza says:

    The DMI graph That SG put is correct and shows that ice mass and 30% extent which is MORE accurate than the 15% *thin ice DMI graph. Its shows HIGHEST extent for 12 years was reached yesterday. Greenland mass is increasing he is also correct and you are just pushing the fraudsters aqgenda because this site is doing irreparable damage to your criminal intents. Check Paraguay temperature adjustments Paul Homewood for irrevocable proof of massive fraud by your pals. Its only a matter of time before serious prosecutions will start against Shuckla et al

  6. sfx2020 says:

    When we don’t even have accurate measurements, arguing science is futile. It’s a travesty we can’t measure everything, considering the amount of money and resources wasted on unimportant crap every single day.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Heck the USA spends Trillions on ‘Climate Change’ and cant even bother to install accurate calibrated thermometers correctly! This tells you that it is all hype or more care to do the measurements would have been taken. Then NOAA yaps about a delta 0.026C as ‘highest temp evah’

      Remember the USA has the ‘best’ quality data and it sucks big time since the accuracy is only ~ 2C.

      Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:

      Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover 3 degrees.

      Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.

      Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

      Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

      Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

  7. ripatheism says:

    Martin Smith – why don’t you try fighting for something meaningful – This man is not misleading anyone, if anything he is correcting the tampering, the flagrant and idiotic press, the government shills called “climatologist”… Your “Team” (and that’s all you care about) was WRONG – making public policy and tons of cash of an overfed and under-read people is disgusting. Go sell your snake oil and your adjustments somewhere else…. I am sure you dispute the shortest melt season too, and I am sure you can come up with a global warming “cause” for this – the “theory” you promote, is a joke, can’t be falsified, as we are constantly told “just wait” and boy it will get hot..and sea level will rise, someday…..great theory… I am sure you can become a Gore Bot and go out an preach somewhere else…may I suggest California?

  8. John Finn says:

    I think there might be some confusion over exactly what the SMB graphic represents. This statement appears on the DMI site

    For an ice sheet that neither grows or shrinks, there is at all points averaged over the year a balance between

    . the amount of snow that falls and is compressed to ice
    . the amount of snow and ice that melts or evaporates (sublimates) and
    . the amount of ice that flows away due to the ice motion

    The two first contributions make up the surface mass balance. For the ice sheet as a whole, there is a balance between the surface mass balance and the amount of ice that calves into the ocean as icebergs.

    The graphs clearly don’t include ice that calves into the ocean so it’s not possible to say whether or not Greenland has gained ice this year.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The Greenland Graph as PRESENTED is perfectly clear.
      the legend says:

      Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve from the period 1990-2013 is shown (dark grey). The same calendar day in each of the 24 years (in the period 1990-2013) will have its own value. These differences from year to year are illustrated by the light grey band. For each calendar day, however, the lowest and highest values of the 24 years have been left out.

      We can read you know.

      • John Finn says:

        Quite – but the surface mass balance only takes into account the amount of snow which falls and is compressed as ice versus the ice and snow which melts or evaporates. It does not take into account ice which is lost through calving

        Read this guest post by 2 DMI scientists

        http://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-state-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet-in-2015/

        which includes this

        “Combining calving losses with surface mass changes gives us the “total mass balance”. A positive balance indicates that the total mass of the ice sheet is growing, while a negative balance shows it is shrinking.”

        and this

        ” Given that it doesn’t include ice losses by calving icebergs and ocean melting, the surface mass budget is usually strongly positive at the end of the year. 2015 was no exception – gaining around 220bn tonnes of new ice – but this is below the average of about 290bn tonnes. In the record year in 2012, the surface mass balance at the end of the year was approximately zero.

        The surface mass balance isn’t the full story, of course. To calculate the total mass balance, we will need to wait for the satellite results to gauge how much ice has been lost through calving icebergs and ocean melt.

        Satellite observations over the past decade show that the calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance – and Greenland is losing mass at about 250bn tonnes per year. ”

        It looks likely that Greenland is still losing ice.

        • Gail Combs says:

          SIGHHHhhhhh,

          We understand calving. It is a function of the amount of snow, the steepness of the angle, geothermal melting from the earth (Like in Antarctica) and other geologic features.

          HOWEVER Greenland is shaped like a bowl with teeth.

        • Gail Combs says:

          You are also setting up a strawman. The subject is an INCREASE IN FRESH ICE!

          If the amount of FRESH ICE is increased year on year, aka ICE GROWTH, then you do not have Gore Bull Warbling and that is the point Steven is getting across.

          Dance around the subject all you want Finn but fairly soon Mother Nature is going to slap everyone up side the head with the fact the earth is cooling not warming. Storms dumping 6 feet or more snow on cities like Buffalo, Boston and in the Greek Islands. (6 1/2 feet last year) Great Lakes that ice over and do not thaw completely until mid June. Rivers and shores that freeze all the way down to Washington DC and even further south. (Jordan lake in NC had a skim of Ice last year) These facts are going to wake people up ESPECIALLY when accompanied by frequent blackouts caused by idiot politicians and the likes of the EPA.

        • John Finn says:

          Gail Combs says:
          November 5, 2015 at 12:03 am
          SIGHHHhhhhh,

          We understand calving.

          Good – then you’ll understand it can cause loss of ice from the ice sheet. This loss is not included in the SMB graphic. It’s not just mean saying this – it’s DMI scientists, i.e. the people who present the data. Why don’t you SIGHHHHHH at them – or better still why don’t you just admit that the SMB graphic doesn’t provide a true representation of Total Mass Balance

        • John Finn says:

          You are also setting up a strawman. The subject is an INCREASE IN FRESH ICE!

          If the amount of FRESH ICE is increased year on year, aka ICE GROWTH, then you do not have Gore Bull Warbling and that is the point Steven is getting across.

          Huh? What on earth are you on about? There’s fresh ice every year. Fresh ice is forming in the Arctic at this very moment. According to you, Steve’s main point seems to be that precipitation in Greenland was higher in 2015 than in some previous years.

          So what?

        • Gail Combs says:

          And why don’t you understand this is about SNOW and ICE formed THIS YEAR!

          If you don’t like the info on Greenland how about Scotland where baby glaciers are starting to form? August 24, 2014 Surprise! Glaciers appearing in Scotland
          According to the BBC;

          “Hazards common in arctic and alpine areas but described as “extremely unusual” in the UK during the summer have been found on Ben Nevis.

          A team of climbers and scientists investigating the mountain’s North Face said snowfields remained in many gullies and upper scree slopes.

          On these fields, they have come across compacted, dense, ice hard snow call neve.

          Neve is the first stage in the formation of glaciers, the team said.”

          The team has also encountered sheets of snow weighing hundreds of tonnes and tunnels and fissures known as bergschrunds.

          This year was even worse.

          or the Great Lakes which have had record ice the last two years.

          or the Northern Hemisphere Snow cover that has also been at record levels.

  9. Rico L says:

    Is there ice in the Arctic – yes
    Is there ice in the Antarctic – yes

    Climate debate over.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Is there ice in the Arctic – yes
      Is there ice in the Antarctic – yes

      That is the definition of an Ice Age! OH MY GOODNESS the earth is in an ICE AGE!!!! whinge wimper sniffle…. CAGW is dead.

  10. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Antarctica ice mass rapidly growing, as confirmed by NASA, growth which would reduce the natural rate of global sea level rise.

    Record ice growth and cold temperatures in the Arctic region.

    And yet our Governments and the UN want to sign our freedoms and money away to stop ‘global warming’!?

    We should be signing a climate treaty to forestall global cooling. It would make more sense based on observable, real-world evidence.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    John Finn says: “…Huh? What on earth are you on about? There’s fresh ice every year. Fresh ice is forming in the Arctic at this very moment. According to you, Steve’s main point seems to be that precipitation in Greenland was higher in 2015 than in some previous years.

    So what?”

    Are you really that much of a dimbulb?

    The point is the AMOUNT. Snow falls every year in Scotland, Canada and northern USA but we don’t have a mile of Ice sitting on Chicago right now. GUESS WHY?

    • John Finn says:

      The point is the AMOUNT. Snow falls every year in Scotland, Canada and northern USA …

      No it’s not.The point of THIS discussion was the surface mass balance on Greenland. It centred around the specific and valid point (made by me) that the surface mass balance does NOT represent the TOTAL mass balance.

      DMI scientists make it clear that the surface mass balance increases most years – by an average of 290 Gt. The gain in 2015 was around 220 Gt. However, the losses from calving and melting at the edges usually mean that more ice is lost than is gained. In other words the Total Mass Balance will be lower.

      Steve Goddard has consistently maintained that Greenland is gaining ice and has used the SMB to support his claim. If Steve was correct on this then Greenland would have been gaining ice in pretty much every year apart from perhaps 2012.

  12. Jason Calley says:

    I think everyone obviously understands that SMB does not include calving. We also understand that calving is a result of geography, ice thickness and flow rate. Calving could even be influenced by geothermal melting of bottom layers. The important point is that even if total mass balance is negative, as long as SMB is positive then we do not have Greenland melting from radiative effects of CO2. Any melting from CO2 has to go through the surface first. If the surface is accumulating ice faster than it is melting or sublimating then we cannot blame ice loss on CO2.

    • Jason Calley says:

      As long as SMB is positive, blaming CAGW for ice loss is just a rerun of the same magical thinking that explained the pause by saying that the heat snuck through the atmosphere without warming it, and then made the oceans warm up.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Nicely said. Thanks Jason.

    • menicholas says:

      Also, ice lost through melting is counted against the mass balance, but much or all of this may just be refreezing underneath somewhere. In other words, it is counted as lost mass but may not be lost at all.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The article I got the ‘Bowl with Teeth’ from says Greenland, unlike Antarctica does not have lakes under the ice sheet. They think there is a drainage system (river) and that is why they do not find lakes.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Gail!Interesting point you make. The density of ice is just over 90% that of water, so if the Greenland icecap is (just as an example) one kilometer thick, it would take 900 meters of water to float it and thus leave a lake at the bottom of the bowl. If the vertical distance from the bottom of the bowl to the lowest egress point out of the bowl is less than 900 meters, the ice will be permanently grounded without any major lakes. Over the long term, any melt water will either refreeze or will be drained out. Of course local or temporary lakes can still happen, but not large scale and long term.

        • menicholas says:

          The temp of the ice at depth is almost surely very close to the mean annual temperature for the location.
          See what happens when you pour cold water onto a glass of ice fresh out of the freezer.
          My freezer is set to -2 F. When I pour cold water into this ice, it quickly freezes right onto the ice.
          So, several questions occur to me right off:
          – What is the average annual temp on the ice sheet?
          – What is the thermal conductivity of ice as compared to rock or dirt? (I suspect it is higher)
          – What is the thickness of the ice where those
          – What are the chances that cold water will get to the bottom of several thousand feet of ice, that is itself far below the freezing point, in the liquid state?
          – Or, if it does somehow make it all the way to the bottom in a straight shot, that it will stay liquid for very long?
          – Are there rivers emerging from under the ice sheet anywhere?

          The NYT article states that the water pouring into the moulins emerges into the sea, but a quote form the article then states “They might even learn, Dr. Smith said, that the water is refreezing within the ice sheet and that sea levels are actually rising more slowly than models project”.

          -How fast do the ice sheets deform?
          – Are these moulins permanent, persisting in the same place from year to year?
          – If not, how might it be known that they drain in the sea? That would be a very long tunnel through some very cold ice. The water is near freezing point to begin with.

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