Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


NASA data shows oceans cooling since 2003?

posted at 5:30 pm on January 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

This comes as no great shock, since the Arctic has the most ice in its cap since 1979.  However, the data tends to support those who theorize that warming and cooling cycles are nothing more than that, and undermine the argument for global warming as a consequence of carbon dioxide.  It also explains why the last two winters have gotten longer and colder instead of shorter and warmer:

Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world’s oceans have been losing heat.  In the peak of the recent warming trend, 1998 actually ranked 2nd to 1934 as the warmest year on record.

John Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, published his first report about the warming oceans. The article Correcting Ocean Cooling (see below) published on NASA’s Earth Observatory page this week discussed his and other results.  willis used data from1993-2003 that showed the warm-up and followed the Global Warming Theory.  In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled. He was surprised, and called it a ’speed bump’ on the way to global warming.

A second, independent study was conducted. Takmeng Wong and his colleagues at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia came up with the same results.  Wong studies net flux of solar energy at the top of our atmosphere.  From the 1980s to 1990s his team noticed increased amounts net energy when comparing incoming solar energy to what Earth radiates and reflects.  Since then, the solar flux has remained the same.  Other studies have suggested that the sun’s output has decreased in the past few years.

In fairness, though, the NASA paper to which this site links comes up with a very different explanation.  Research discovered problems with specific kinds of sensors used for decades in ocean temperature surveys.  Older XBT data gave data biased towards warmer temperature readings, while newer Argo floats were biased in the opposite direction.

This leads to another problem, however.  Much of the actual ocean temperature data for the past few decades came from these probes; the rest, according to the paper, came primarily from satellite data, ships, and computer models.  The NASA paper claims to have pulled out the bad data and corrected for it so that their new data matches the computer models that support global-warming theories.

But is that real, or just an attempt to fit data points into preconceived models?  The only direct measurements would have come from ships, and is that really enough to even have a reliable record of ocean temperatures?

Bad data leads to bad conclusions, regardless of whether it matches pre-conceived notions or not.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Silly man.

Don’t you know that increasing snowfall, decreasing land and ocean temperatures are irrefutable evidence of global warming?

What more do you need to understand?

BobMbx on January 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Obama’s policies already worked, and appear to have time-traveled as well.

Chuck Schick on January 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM

How convenient that the “fix” now puts the data back in line with the Global Warming models…

RedSoxNation on January 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Note to NASA scientists: Just fake the damn data already. You know the conclusions you want to draw, so why give those of us who haven’t bought into AGW hope by putting out stories like this? To paraphrase the old Soviet joke about work and pay, you pretend the Earth is warming and we’ll pretend to be warm.

venividivici on January 22, 2009 at 5:38 PM

How convenient that the “fix” now puts the data back in line with the Global Warming models…

RedSoxNation on January 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Computers enable instant revisionism.

the_nile on January 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Wouldn’t a little global warming be a good thing?

nazo311 on January 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Man I wish the oceans would warm up already, having grown up in the Bay Area I can tell you the pacific ocean water is damn cold!

So get on with the climate change already and warm up that damn pacific ocean before I go swimming again!

Liberty or Death on January 22, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Al Gore! Oh Al Gore!

Hmmm… his sculpture seems to be ignoring me. I hope we chip away at the remain in March.

upinak on January 22, 2009 at 5:40 PM

What,you mean the polar bears can take a break from swimming this year.

Alex Martinez on January 22, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Every time the data show cooling, they question the sensors or the methods or whatever.

Evey time data show warming, no questions asked. It goes straight to the press release.

forest on January 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Yeah, ocean temperature studies aren’t exactly cooperating with the whole global warming thing.

flipflop on January 22, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Does this mean the oceans qualify for a bailout?

Laura in Maryland on January 22, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Well no wonder it’s so freakin’ cold outside!

Tony737 on January 22, 2009 at 5:46 PM

By definition, when you try to describe something you know little about, you end up with “bad” data…you don’t know how it fits.
We know so little about the weather, remember last couple of years were going to be the mother of all hurricane years…and nary a one.
We had freakin snow here in Wilmington, imagine, snow on palm trees…and BTW, ask those guys what the weather is going to be like on March 15, 2009, let’s see how accurate they are…

right2bright on January 22, 2009 at 5:48 PM

For a lib, climate modeling is just like a close election – futz with the data/votes until desired outcome is attained. Honesty is optional, and generally discouraged.

innominatus on January 22, 2009 at 5:50 PM

“In order to obtain a certain result, You must want to obtain precisely that result; if you want to obtain a certain result, you will obtain it …. I need only such people as will obtain the results I need.” – Trofim Lysenko

Red Creek on January 22, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Pot hole would be a better metaphor than speed bump.

(I hope the Warmists break an axle.)

Peri Winkle on January 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Please no one tell Al Gore .He would have a heart attack.

thmcbb on January 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Follow the money………….

…………. prove the “Global Warming Hoax” and implement Social Engineering Leftist Legislation, then you get financed.

Disprove it…………

……………. and you are no longer invited to the luncheons.

Seven Percent Solution on January 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM

That means the west coast salmon runs should be awesome. Plus Plus.

Plus those Indopacific Lionfish (that people release from their fish tanks) spreading up the East Coast should be kept in check.

Mr. Joe on January 22, 2009 at 5:58 PM

That means the west coast salmon runs should be awesome. Plus Plus.
Mr. Joe on January 22, 2009 at 5:58 PM

other then they have been late … in some cases 2 weeks.

upinak on January 22, 2009 at 6:00 PM

Does anyone else find it odd that they didn’t say the oceans are cooling or that the temperatures of the oceans are colder, but instead that the oceans are losing heat?

Are they trying to stay away from any c word or are they just trying put the word hot or heat in anyway they can?

MobileVideoEngineer on January 22, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Who’ave thunk it?

Johan Klaus on January 22, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Yeah, ocean temperature studies aren’t exactly cooperating with the whole global warming thing.

flipflop on January 22, 2009 at 5:45 PM

I heard a quote that said that, “colder temperatures are proof of global warming”.

Johan Klaus on January 22, 2009 at 6:09 PM

But the gag messiah swore that if we all left our homes
and moved into a condominium and started to live like 60’s groupies into drugs and sex orgies

that all would be well on the earth and we would have stopped global warming..

If the earth is cooling do we still get to keep the orgies?
It might help?
MORONS..

jcila on January 22, 2009 at 6:10 PM

but al gore said…

gatorboy on January 22, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Do they even factor in Milankovich cycles? Wouldn’t the earth’s axial tilt and “wobble” have an affect on solar radiation hitting, or not, the earth’s surface?

Tom

marinetbryant on January 22, 2009 at 6:11 PM

I know some are sceptical about how a molecule which comprises only 4/100 of 1% of the earth’s atmosphere could affect the climate but if you would send me more money I will continue to study this question – so Obama and I together can save the world while we find good homes in Pennsylvania and elsewhere for all those misunderstood pious guys at Gitmo. In the meantime, please ignore this:

Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Carbon dioxide is a tiny fraction of air, and is a gas just like nitrogen (79%) and oxygen (21%). Carbon dioxide (0.04%) has no more global warming effect than nitrogen or oxygen. Carbon dioxide is a global warming hoax. Water vapor contributes 95 percent of global warming. Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contributes only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Reducing man-made carbon dioxide by 30 percent in accordance with Kyoto Protocol would reduce the earth’s temperature by only 1/20th of one degree by 2050 AD, assuming all other factors, including Jupiter and water vapor did not change, which they definitely will. The only affect limiting fuel will have on humanity is increased prices, business failures and world-wide depression

Basilsbest on January 22, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Global Warming or the new meme “Global Climate Change” is just new ways of saying “pig in a poke”. Those who buy into it deserve what they receive.

Rode Werk on January 22, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Right after the Chief Justice said “Congratulations Mr. President” to Obama the seas cooled 3 degrees, ice started to reform for polar bears and the ozone shrank to pre 2000 levels.

Obama is the Preperation H for Global Warming.

portlandon on January 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Ummmm…. how in the heck does a thermometer have a bias?

This whole “fixing” data because we don’t like what it tells us thing is so unscientific its silly.

Old sensors showed it warmer, but new sensors show it colder? and yet they rely on the data? Uh… didn’t they bother to test these things?

Or, as is my suspicion, do they just not agree with what the thermometers are telling them…

Romeo13 on January 22, 2009 at 6:22 PM

That reminds me of a presentation I attended yesterday from Dr. Willie Soon. He found a far-closer link between solar output and temperature than between carbon dioxide and temperature. Indeed, the link between CO2 and temperature was that increases in temperature consistency preceded increases in CO2 by 600-800 years.

steveegg on January 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM

steveegg

Your comment is too intelligent for this topic. AGW is a hoax and only ridicule – and a close observation of the brass monkey – will cure liberals of their delusions.

Basilsbest on January 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM

They found another batch of temperature measurements in a folder in a warehouse. They are also disputing some temperature reports as having marks outside the allowed locations.

NASA is now reviewing these to determine the “thermometer intent.”

pedestrian on January 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM

I bring this stuff up to my liberal eco-friends and they keep telling me the reason is because the ice is melting and going into the water and therefore cooling the water temperature. You know like when you stick ice in your ice tea?

=P

Sultry Beauty on January 22, 2009 at 6:40 PM

This is totally irrelevant. There is a huge amount of money (Al Gore’s carbon trading wheeze is the tip of the non-melting iceberg) and political will (totalising) behind the ‘climate change’ con.

Facts do not matter.

Obama and the left will continue to call climate change, something that is a feature of earth’s existence since time began, a man-made plague that must be addressed through increased government control of populations through a variety of repressive instruments wielded by an ever more powerful state.

‘Climate change’ has nothing to do with the climate – it has everything to do with dubious vested financial interests coupled to statist ambitions. As such it is completely illiberal.

Ares on January 22, 2009 at 6:44 PM

I bring this stuff up to my liberal eco-friends and they keep telling me the reason is because the ice is melting and going into the water and therefore cooling the water temperature. You know like when you stick ice in your ice tea?

=P

Sultry Beauty on January 22, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Hmmmmm … then by using that logic when ice builds up the water temp should get warmer, and seeing how the Arctic ice is doing just fine, the water temp should be boiling.

latest Arctic ice shot …

darwin on January 22, 2009 at 6:48 PM

The NASA paper claims to have pulled out the bad data and corrected for it so that their new data matches the computer models that support global-warming theories.

That’s not just bad science, that’s fraud. You never remove data or “correct” it to fit preconceived models. That’s literally fitting the data to the hypothesis and is completely contradictory to the scientific method.

There are legitimate reasons for omitting data determined to be bad or to correct data, but it must be made according to specific criteria, not to “fit the model” the data is supposed to be testing!

taznar on January 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM

First, “CO2 traps solar radiation, creating Global Warming.”

Then, “CO2 reflects solar radiation, creating Global Cooling.”

Any Questions?

franksalterego on January 22, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Bad data? How about throwing in some bad ego? I wouldn’t trust those twits from NASA with $1 to buy ice cream.

GarandFan on January 22, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Bad data leads to bad conclusions, regardless of whether it matches pre-conceived notions or not.

GIGO.

MB4 on January 22, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Ummmm…. how in the heck does a thermometer have a bias?

Romeo13 on January 22, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Only NASA has thermometers that fail. That is why only their thermometers can be trusted.

We could look at the data from all the regional temperature reporting points for all the TV weather reports and know precisely what sort of trends have taken place over the years.

The same people who are behind the climate hoaxing are the same people who calibrate the instruments and collect/calculate the data. It’s a mind boggling conflict of interest.

Buddahpundit on January 22, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Maybe they are confusing Centigrade with Farenheit. I mean they have already lost millions in taxpayer money because they could not make the conversion from Imperial to metric before. Science is not NASA’s current strongpoint.

cobrakai99 on January 22, 2009 at 7:48 PM

Bad data leads to bad conclusions, regardless of whether it matches pre-conceived notions or not.

Right. I question the accuracy, precision and repeatability of the instruments. We’re talking about tenths of a degree here.

From my experience in industry where I depended on various temperature, weight and moisture instrumentation for results, the calibration of these devices was critical for accurate results. On top of that, the normal deviation in the instrument itself can bias the results.

I say bullshit to the ability to measure to tenths of a degree consistently and accurately in the open environment.

BacaDog on January 22, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Cooling oceans now prove that Al Gore was right all the time! Global warming has caused the polar ice caps to melt which in turn caused the oceans to cool. That cold water temperature cools the atmosphere as it travels through the ocean currents around the world thus creating cooler winters in North America. Americans then, ignorant of our fragile eco system and delicate balance of the earth, greedily turn up their thermostats in their homes, drive gas guzzling SUVS while engaging in unregulated free capitalism spewing carbon molecules into our delicate oxygen supply damaging our environment while heating up our planet,,,, which all in turn melts the ice caps thus causing the oceans to cool!
Any Eco-scientist can figure this out. I want a government grant!

JellyToast on January 22, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Modelling something as complex as climate might be fine if you are a bored NASA scientist eager to fill the long, empty hours of the work week but it is of no more import than if you spent the same time in the lavatory with an old Hustler magazine. But playing with data can be fun, too.

thegreatbeast on January 22, 2009 at 8:00 PM

James Hansen’s climate armageddon predictions are based on the idea that the ocean has been absorbing the heat. This article is from 2002 I believe:

Most of the energy imbalance has been heat going into the
ocean. Sydney Levitus of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has analyzed ocean temperature changes of
the past 50 years, finding that the world ocean heat content increased
about 10 watt-years per square meter in the past 50
years. He also finds that the rate of ocean heat storage in recent
years is consistent with our estimate that the earth is now out
of energy balance by 0.5 to one watt per square meter. Note
that the amount of heat required to melt enough ice to raise sea
level one meter is about 12 watt-years (averaged over the planet),
energy that could be accumulated in 12 years if the planet
is out of balance by one watt per square meter.
The agreement with observations, for both the modeled
temperature change and ocean heat storage, leaves no doubt
that observed global climate change is being driven by natural
and anthropogenic forcings. The current rate of ocean heat
storage is a critical planetary metric: it not only determines the
amount of additional global warming already in the pipeline,
but it also equals the reduction in climate forcings needed to
stabilize the earth’s present climate

If the ocean is cooling while the atmosphere has been cooling, Hansen is debunked.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/hansen_timebomb.pdf

Buddahpundit on January 22, 2009 at 8:20 PM

HOT DAMN!!! With Nasa scientists willing to doctor data to fit their pre-conceived notions, we’re gonna be killing off a BUTTLOAD of astronauts.

/not popcorn

44Magnum on January 22, 2009 at 8:56 PM

I work with various systems that take data in the real world. As another in this threat pointed out, thinking that you can measure real world conditions to 0.1 degrees and even more egregious, to extrapolate that kind of precision from ice core samples, tree ring data, goat entrails, etc is pure folly.

One very distinguished analyst with whom I’m acquainted remarked one time that as a young engineer, he was really excited about becoming a data analyst and how being able to collect, analyze, and extrapolate data would be the way to prove the behavior of systems and to determine the optimum system solution. Until he accompanied a more senior analyst to a meeting for their next assignment and the senior analyst asked the sponsor what result the sponsor wanted the analysts to get.

AZfederalist on January 22, 2009 at 10:18 PM

Are these people climatologists or accountants? They sure aren’t scientists!

OldEnglish on January 22, 2009 at 10:56 PM

Gee, what were the odds of that. Oh wait, according to the last UN meeting, fifty for, and six hundred and fifty against. Wow.

Snake307 on January 22, 2009 at 11:17 PM

James Hansen’s climate armageddon predictions are based on the idea that the ocean has been absorbing the heat. This article is from 2002 I believe:

Everyone must committ this memory: Whenever you hear the name “James Hansen”, train yourself to call up this tidbit of info….in the ’70s, James Hansen warned of the coming Ice Age.

This man has been galactically wrong on two occasions. He has run out of weather extremes to predict, unless he predicts that the weather will be perfectly normal in 5 years. If he does that, run for your life.

BobMbx on January 22, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Ok,then, let’s get this economy going. . .

Drill Baby Drill, then let’s Build Baby Build!

I want the space elevator, diverting important NASA work that could be useful to chase the global warming/climate change bugbear has diverted to much time and energy down a green hole.

I want my flying car dammit!

I’ve been waiting, and we should have them by now!

21st century – bah!

Jason Coleman on January 23, 2009 at 1:32 AM

The NASA paper claims to have pulled out the bad data and corrected for it so that their new data matches the computer models that support global-warming theories.

Unfortunately you cannot just ‘toss’ samples in a legitimate scientific study.

So many things wrong here in the gathering of data points. Really to be fair you would have to scrap all the data.

You should use one method of gathering data points. If the used probes that were consistently low then that is acceptable. You can correct for that – not that you really need to in this case to see a warming or cooling trend.

However when they have old probes that trend one way, new probes that trend another, and other temperature monitoring methods being used you cannot trust your data. That is so freaking wrong it is scary.

I spent 10 years working in a lab and would never use data like that for anything other than drawing a very crude assessment before repeating the experiment with better data gathering methods. It certainly wouldn’t be something you release as an actual scientific study.

This is nothing more than propaganda with some unreliable data to back it up.

Mr Purple on January 23, 2009 at 2:53 AM

called it a ’speed bump’

Riiight. Now would that speed bump be for 40 years or 40,000?

But no matter, global cooling causes global warming.

petefrt on January 23, 2009 at 6:51 AM

Follow the money………….

…………. prove the “Global Warming Hoax” and implement Social Engineering Leftist Legislation, then you get financed.

Seven Percent Solution on January 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM

That’s what it all boils down to, isn’t it. Insisting on legitimate science is beside the point for these leftist politicians, whose overriding purpose is totalizing gubmit control over our lives.

petefrt on January 23, 2009 at 7:16 AM

Uh… didn’t they bother to test these things?

Romeo13 on January 22, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Why test when we can just adjust the data later as necessary? Punt the bug, we’ll patch it later if we have to.

DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM

First, “CO2 traps solar radiation, creating Global Warming.”

Then, “CO2 reflects solar radiation, creating Global Cooling.”

Any Questions?

franksalterego on January 22, 2009 at 7:04 PM

The effect depends on which way the CO2 molecules are aligned. Belly down and the infrared radiation is reflected back to the earth (trapping it in), belly up and it’s reflected back to space (keeping it out).

DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 9:56 AM

The oceans scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere far more than the land masses’ flora does, as 3/4 of the earth’s surface is water not land.

The earth is not a static one-way system. It has cycles, it has massive complex systems that ebb and flow based on external forces (uh, like, the Sun and the Moon).

Global warming is a massive myth. Empirical evidence says so.

Neo on January 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM

In the peak of the recent warming trend, 1998 actually ranked 2nd to 1934 as the warmest year on record.

(from the article)

This is more honesty than we normally get on this subject, but it should be pointed out that the “record” they are talking about only goes back 200 years. They are talking about the actual measured temperature record, which is an eye-blink in time compared to earth temperature record from the beginning.

The “reconstructed” temperature records that are suppose to go back thousands of years show that neither 1998 or 1934 are anywhere close to the warmest years. Bottom line, there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth’s temperature in the recent past has been anything but perfectly normal.

Maxx on January 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Pew Poll: Global warming ranks dead last as priority…

Maybe…. just maybe people are starting to realize what a grand hoax global warming is.

Maxx on January 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM

They might be a tad worried about having their budget could be slashed and have tried to please. Bye, bye moon trip.

TastyPanda on January 23, 2009 at 11:25 AM

First, “CO2 traps solar radiation, creating Global Warming.”

Then, “CO2 reflects solar radiation, creating Global Cooling.”

Any Questions?

franksalterego on January 22, 2009 at 7:04 PM

The reason I never believed the AGW hoax is because the same people who said that “CO2 traps solar radiation, creating Global Warming” actually said that “CO2 reflects solar radiation, creating Global Cooling.” It was ‘Global Cooling ‘ that was the ‘hoax du jour’ before it was global warming.

Here is some of what I’m talking about

Chaz706 on January 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

“We know so little about the weather, remember last couple of years were going to be the mother of all hurricane years…and nary a one.”

True we do know sooooooo little about long term weather.

However we know a lot about fakes, frauds, charlatans,’ conman’s.

BTW, Global warming is wayyyyyy to specific.

Those who are “enlightened” know its Global CLIMATE CHANGE!

The Global Climate may:
Get Warmer
Get Colder
Or
Not Change at All

All those “specifics” are JUST distractions.
What ever the Climate does
it’s wrong,
it’s a disaster
and
it’s YOUR FAULT!!!!

DSchoen on January 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Opps, forgot.

The debate is OVER!
Don’t ask any question’s
There’s no time!

Were all Doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed!

DSchoen on January 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM

All those “specifics” are JUST distractions.
What ever the Climate does
it’s wrong,
it’s a disaster
and
it’s YOUR FAULT!!!!

DSchoen on January 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM

You forgot….. AND WE ARE GOING TO TAX YOUR PANTIES OFF FOR IT !!!!!!!

Maxx on January 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM

And they’re still screaming about warming.

It would be funny if it weren’t so . . . well . . . cultish.

Ryan Gandy on January 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM

The NASA paper claims to have pulled out the bad data and corrected for it so that their new data matches the computer models that support global-warming theories.

STOP SCREWING WITH DATA TO MAKE THE DATA CONFORM,DATA DOESNT CARE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING,COOLING OR ANYTHING ELSE,IT IS ONLY DATA.

P.S. MR GORE,GO SCREW YOURSELF

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on January 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM

BacaDog
“From my experience in industry where I depended on various temperature, weight and moisture instrumentation for results, the calibration of these devices was critical for accurate results.”

Shooting ABS or medical plastic?

DSchoen on January 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM

MobileVideoEngineer
“Does anyone else find it odd that they didn’t say the oceans are cooling or that the temperatures of the oceans are colder, but instead that the oceans are losing heat?
Are they trying to stay away from any c word or are they just trying put the word hot or heat in anyway they can?”

Pay attention people.

It’s no longer global warming or global cooling it’s
“Global climate change”.

Kind of like saying “the sky is falling” without mentioning the sky or falling, AND you will never be wrong.

It’s F-ing brilliant really.

DSchoen on January 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.