Climate Change

Extent of Arctic Sea Ice at Record Low

|

Salt water slushy anyone?

Actually "record low" depends on the time period under consideration. In this case, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reports:

Arctic sea ice appears to have broken the 2007 record daily extent and is now the lowest in the satellite era. With two to three more weeks left in the melt season, sea ice continues to track below 2007 daily extents…

Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).

Including this year, the six lowest ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012).

Going, going, gone?

In November, 2011 researchers reported in Nature that summer Arctic sea ice cover in 2007 was the lowest in the past 1,500 years. From the abstract:

…we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.

However, another set of researchers analyzed driftwood on Arctic beaches to create a 10,000 year record of Arctic sea ice variability, [sub required] published in the August 5, 2011 issue of Science. Combining their data with climate models, the researchers report:

In this exercise, our records would correspond in the model to an Arctic Ocean sea-ice cover in summer at 8 ky B.P. that was less than half of the record low 2007 level [emphasis added].The general buildup of sea ice from ~6 ky B.P. agrees with the LOVECLIM model, showing that summer sea-ice cover, which reached its Holocene maximum during the LIA [little ice age], attained its present (~2000) extent at ~ 4 ky B.P.

During the Holocene Temperature Maximum (~8,000 years ago), Arctic temperatures are estimated to have been about 2 degrees celsius higher than at present. Those higher HTM temperatures are thought to have been the result of orbital shifts that increase the amount of sunlight hitting the Northern Hemisphere. The current temperature increases are thought to be the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

NEXT: Publication of Naked Prince Harry Pics Draws Thousands of Complaints

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So during the Holocene era the temperatures were two degrees higher than they are now because “orbital shifts that increase the amount of sunlight hitting the Northern Hemisphere”, but the temperature rise we see now is not because of that………..why?

    1. Because of carbon producing doody heads like you.

      1. My ancestor sluggo the frozen caveman doesn’t appreciate your disparaging remarks. He burned the hell out of anything he could get his hands on back in the day.

        But he used organic dung in his campfires because he cared about the environment unlike you reprobates.

        1. “So there me was beating boulder into powder because me couldn’t eat it and magic ball land in lap. Naturally, me think, ‘All right! Free egg!’ because me stupid and me cave man. So me spent about three days humping and bust open with thigh bone so me could eat it good, then magic ball shoot Oog with beam, and next thing me know me go out and invent wheel out of dinosaur brain! Magic dino-wheel rolled for three short distance before me eat it, the point is me get smarter. Soon, me walk upright. Me featherback dirty, matted hair into wings for style and me stop to use bathroom as opposed to me just doing it as me walk.”

          1. “Clam Digger. Give Oog Clam Digger. “

            1. Ignignokt: Look Err, free egg.
              Err: Damn, yeah! For straight, for shizum!
              Ignignokt: Try having omelettes now, Denver!

        2. “Folks, I’m just a simple cave man…”

    2. You’re taking that statement out of context. The increase in temp during Holocene Temperature Maximum is thought to have been caused by an orbital shift (wobble in the Earth’s axis). And I’ve yet to see any definitive proof as to what is causing the current rise in temp. Maybe it’s green house gases. Maybe another wobble in the axis. I’ll let you know when I figure it out.

      1. THERE’S NO TIME FOR THAT MAN!!!! WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!

        1. I told you I’m working on it… these things take time and trillions of dollars in federal grants. Do you have any idea how long it takes to print that kind of money?

    3. Because…consensus?

      1. and consensus is really all that matters. Bunch of goddamn carbon spewers.

        1. And by “consensus” what we mean is “the theory that gets us the most funding”.

          Consensus brother. It’s a living.

          1. I could be wrong, but the secret may lie in the first three letters of the word. It’s as good a theory as anything else.

      2. It’s the New Scientific Method!

        Step 1: Obtain a research grant from someone in government who needs an excuse to pass certain legislation or regulations.

        Step 2: Reverse engineer some computer models to arrive at the predetermined conclusion.

        Step 3: Consensus!

        Repeat.

        1. I thought Step 3 was Profit.

          1. Unlike the underwear gnomes, these “scientists” have actually figured out how to profit. It’s right there in step 1.

          2. That’s now step 1.

        2. Step 3: Con-sensus!

          1. Can’t spell “consensus” without “con”, and you can’t spell “environmentalist” without “mental”.

            Coincidence?

            1. just sayin’

    4. but the temperature rise we see now is not because of that………..why?

      It’s a binary question. The only other choice is SUVs.

    5. Because we can measure the sunlight that reaches Earth, the downwelling of radiation from the atmosphere, and the outwelling of radiation from the Earth. The difference is comparable to the difference between wrapping yourself in a blanket or standing next to a fire. The heat is distributed differently.

      1. OK, so how do we know it was different 8,000 years ago than it is today?

        1. Check downthread, where I briefly explain it to R.C. Dean.

          1. Ok, so what you’re saying is the axis-tilt that affected the warming produced by the sun was different 8,000 years ago than it is today.

            So in relation to your 1-2-3 point below, the argument is that we don’t have either 1 or 2 today but only three?

            1. Right. We can measure the Sun’s output, and it’s actually down a bit from the 1950s, even while the Earth has warmed about 1 degree F. So we know it’s not #1.

              Axis wobbles large enough to alter the Earth’s climate significantly take a long time to come into and out of, barring something catastrophic like a massive asteroid collision. The Earth’s axis is basically the same as it was in the 1950s, but again, it’s 1 F warmer. It’s probably not #2.

              That leaves #3. But more than process of elimination, we know that different types of warming have different patterns. It’s the difference between standing next to a fire and wrapping up in a blanket. We are seeing the “wrapped in a blanket” pattern, which is what you would expect if GHGs are causing the warming. The Earth is trapping more of the Sun’s warmth because we are emitting heat-trapping gases. It’s not just a simulation, we have the radiation and temperature measurements.

    6. We’ve been doing detailed astronomical observations for a while now. Knowing where and when the sun and stars are relative to the horizon is how sailors calculated their position before radio and satellite navigation.

      If Earth’s wobbling were occurring at a pace significant enough to cause the recent uptick in temperature, we’d know it.

  2. The current temperature increases are thought to be the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    If someone thinks so then it must be true.

    1. I read it on the internet.

  3. And just when I finished my plans for an arctic sea ice powered love machine.

    1. There’s nothing like making love to a frigid woman.

      1. “I should’ve killed myself when he put it in me.”

        1. I find it somehow fitting that you prefer to quote Piper Laurie.

          1. I’d quote Piper Laurie if you know what I mean…

        2. Was that what she said when asked about having sex with Ronald Reagan?

      2. There’s nothing like making love to a frigid robot woman.

      3. Frigid women get a bad rap.

      4. “I don’t know but I’ve been told, Eskimo pussie’s mighty cold”

    2. LOVECLIM

      LOVECLIM, it’s a LOVECLIM! LOVECLIM it ‘s a LOVECLIM!….

      I-i-i-i-i-i-ce cap! melted!

  4. It looks like the Northwest passage will finally be viable.

    1. The Inuit pirates will finally have their day.

    2. Its already being used. I read about some Chinese cargo freighters that took that route recently.

    3. Just wait until I take Kamchatka, then we’ll see how viable it is.

  5. How about the antarctic sea ice Ron?

    1. Look over here John, not over there. Otherwise the magic doesn’t work.

    2. The antarctic sea ice is bigger!! Climate change!! DO SOMETHING QUICK!

      1. Pass legislation! Create more regulation! We need a new government agency!

        Ban something! For the love of God, ban something!

        1. For the love of God, ban something!

          Obama’s just one man. If not for those obstructionists in the House, all sorts of things could be banned.

  6. The current temperature increases are thought to be the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    I guess someone goes online for the first time every minute.

  7. …we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that?although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century?both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.

    Weasel science!

    1. The weasel science is settled!

    2. Unfortunately, more and more kids are failing in Reading Comprehension.

      1. Depending on your point of view, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

        Why do you think they don’t teach economics in high school?

        1. Why do you think they don’t teach economics in high school?

          Is it because it’s too hard to find enough grown adults that can lie about the laws of supply and demand and keep a straight face?

    3. Wow. Although we really don’t know shit, this fits our theory and hopes and dreams, so the science is settled.

      1. Although we really don’t know shit, this fits our theory and hopes and dreams the agenda of the people who fund the grants that pay our bills, so the science is settled.

        -ftfy

    4. Luckily there’s more than enough people who don’t know what the words “proxies” or “extensive encertainties” mean. All they need to know is that someone who probably wears a fancy white lab coat to work and has an impressive looking diploma or two on their wall tells them what to think. That’s good enough for most people.

  8. So how much polar ice did we have during the Jurassic Period?

    1. So you’re saying that dinosaurs are coming back!?

      1. How else are we going to make more oil? Duh.

        1. Ahhhh the circle of life.

        2. Well, I’ve always wanted to go mano-a-tootho with a velociraptor. Looks like I’ll get my chance.

          1. Wondering if a Barrett .50 rifle would take down a velociraptor?

            1. The problem is that the brain is such a small target, you’re better off aiming for the vitals in the abdominal cavity.

            2. Since velociraptors were really about the size of a turkey, a Barrett .50 would evaporate the damn thing.

    2. It’s unprecedented! UNPRECEDENTED. Didn’t you Here the man in the white lab coat?

      1. Here=hear. Stupid squirrels.

  9. If we quit the auto habit and adopt innovative public transit, electric, go carts, bikes, we will have less threat and a fresher more peaceful world! stop the excuses about needing to drive.

    1. 90% of the human population will die off when the next glacial period starts.

      1. That’s what all the watermelons think about while jerking off into recycled tissues.

    2. Re: Archimedes,

      If we quit the auto habit and adopt innovative public transit, electric, go carts, bikes, we will have less threat and a fresher more peaceful world!

      Nothing says “peaceful” than riding on a bus full of welfare recipients and city government bureaucrats.

      stop the excuses about needing to drive.

      What’s your excuse, then? Because I don’t need any excuse – I want to drive my car.

  10. Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012.

    Sounds ominous. As if it mattered. As if it was important.

    In this exercise, our records would correspond in the model to an Arctic Ocean sea-ice cover in summer at 8 ky B.P. that was less than half of the record low 2007 level.

    I guess then that it is NOT that important, at least as far as mommy nature is concerned.

  11. Wikipedia is generally crap, but I’ve always liked this graph:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..t_data.svg

    This is what basically lead Time Magazine to say OMFG in the middle 70’s because it was clear to all the scientists that the world was about to come to an end.

  12. The crux of the matter is the world is overpopulated and thisis unsustainable.
    We will soon be 9 billion people. We can do something about this. We have to.
    We need to reduce family size. We need birth control the world over.
    That should be modern thinking. We are overusing our resources. Everybody wants to own everything. We can’t go on like this.
    We need to change people’s attitudes. We are addicted to gasoline. We are addicted to monster houses. Who needs 7 bathrooms?
    We aren’t doing enough. We need to start teaching this from grade school.
    Why is this failing? Because we’re too selfish and unwilling to sacrifice.

    1. Cool story, bro.

      1. You’re clearly too selfish, NutraSweet.

    2. You have to be a total ego-fucking-maniac to think that driving your little car has global implications.

      1. Profit for corporations and convenience for individuals are the two factors that have combined to ensure that we will not get past this crisis without a global catastrophe. Individuals are trapped by their culture, and governments cannot break away from their relationship with corporations.

        1. White Indian, is that you?

        2. Individuals are trapped by their culture

          I’m pretty happy with my culture. Individual liberty, freedom to choose, all sorts of various amenities to make life more enjoyable and less painful.

          If you think I am “trapped” than you are an idiot.

          But we already know you’re an idiot from the “overpopulation” comment nonsense so I repeat myself.

          Here dummy, go read something with math in it about the supposed population “crisis”-

          http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

        3. Where did I leave that fucking can of Troll-B-Gone?

        4. Wait, is this for real? I thought for sure it was too over the top to be serious. I guess you can’t parody some people.

        5. Re: Archimedes,

          Profit for corporations and convenience for individuals are the two factors that have combined to ensure that we will not get past this crisis without a global catastrophe.

          I totally agree – it won’t be until we have a global catastrophe that people and businesses will finally see the folly of the convenience of being able to purchase enough for a daily change of underware.

          I mean, what are we thinking?

          By the way, A: Idiot.

    3. Mmmmmm, copypasta.

      1. I am e-gluten intolerant.

    4. The crux of the matter is the world is overpopulated and this is unsustainable.

      [citation needed].

      So tell me, Archie, what are you doing to reduce your economic footprint?

      1. I have a suggestion. First, go buy a gun.

      2. As a city dweller, what I do is small things.
        I take transit, walk, or get a ride. I never never take a plastic shopping bag. I only shop for necessity. I avoid over packaged items as much as possible.

        1. Good for you. I guess that means you’re a morally superior moron in your own fevered imagination?

        2. Sweet. Enjoy that e coli in your cloth bags. Plastic is sanitary AND less harmful than your precious “reusable bags”. Which have to be reused 1x/wk for 3 years to be net positive. But keep feeling good about yourself, bub.

        3. Fucking retard.

        4. whoopdefuckingdo. You want a medal with that self-righteousness? Those of us in places where mass transit in inefficient make do with driving, often parking right by the doors of the buildings we will enter. I use plastic shopping bags for small trash bins in bathrooms and home office.

          We are addicted to gasoline.
          no..we use a dense energy source that we know now to extract, refine, and turn into all sorts of products that have improved our standard of living. You are welcome to go backwards if you wish; those of us in modernia will not miss you.

        5. I only shop for superfluity. It’s more fun that way.

        6. I only shop for necessity.

          So, you own a few sets of clothes, one or two cooking pots, don’t own any electronics, etc?

        7. Don’t worry dude, as a city dweller I drive a luxury car that gets 13 MPG, and I double bag everything (and try to only put three or four things in each bag so I have a stockpile of plastic bags at home).

    5. You mad, bro?

    6. So apparently a crazy homeless person wandered into their local library, walked up to a terminal that someone had left IE up with the HnR page loaded, and somehow registered and has started spewing insane gibberish.

    7. We are addicted to monster houses. Who needs 7 bathrooms?

      Why are fucking libtards obsessed with the little people having big houses with lots of bathrooms?

      WTF harm is it if I have twenty bathrooms in my house?

      1. because they hate the idea of anyone having more than anyone else. Their version of utopia is only possible by dragging people down.

    8. “Who needs 7 bathrooms?”

      People who entertain large groups a lot.

      1. Take Al Gore in CA for instance…

        http://www.zimbio.com/pictures…..NH/Al+Gore

        Or Al Gore in TN for instance…

        http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i…..28home.jpg

      2. People with bladder problems?

    9. I think I can sell this gentleman some artisan mayonnaise.

    10. Re: Archimedes,

      The crux of the matter is the world is overpopulated and thisis unsustainable.

      Over, by one: YOU.

      Or am I wrong?

      We are addicted to gasoline.

      Who’s “we”? I drink tea, coffee and Coke Zero, maybe a lot; and, I confess, am addicted to Call of Duty, but by the love of me I am not addicted to gasoline – yuck!

      We are addicted to monster houses. Who needs 7 bathrooms?

      Anybody that has seven butts.

      We need to start teaching this from grade school.

      You mean besides the pseudo-scientific “sustainability” crap that they’re teaching them right now?

    11. You’re so fucking stupid you don’t even realize that family sizes and single family homes have gotten smaller.

      God, why don’t envirofreaks like you just fucking kill yourselves? I mean it’s for the good of Mother Gaia afterall.

    12. I’d be willing to bet that you’ve NEVER met ANYONE who has 7 bathrooms.

  13. On the orbital wobble thing:

    I assume we would know if we had a wobble going now – it should be observable, no?

    My question is, how do they know there was a wobble 8,000 years ago?

    On a linguistically pedantic point, you can’t say that a reduction of sea ice to levels last seen 1450 years ago is “unprecedented.” Saying its unprecedented in the last 1450 years is just, well, tendentious. More accurate, and less redolent of agenda, would be to say that sea ice levels appear to have retreated to levels last seen 1450 years ago.

    1. One more thing.

      OK, lets say that the Holocene reduction in sea ice was caused by a wobble.

      What caused the low ice levels 1450 years ago?

      1. The record in the study goes back 1450 years. The current ice extent is the lowest during this timeframe. They’re not saying that the ice was lower in 560 A.D.

        1. Human life span is 80ish years. So we think that 800 years is a long time and 8,000 years is like forever. But 8,000,000 years is chicken-shit in the big picture.

        2. According to that, let’s just say, very difficult to believe study.

          I’ve read the paper and I’m still trying to figure out how they determine sea ice extent using terrestrial ice cores and tree rings.

          It says they got air temperatures from their proxies (a process of which I am also dubious). So the sea ice extent is based on a proxy of a proxy. I’m sorry if I say that it’s basically unreliable.

    2. I’ve read since I was a lad that astronomers knew that the Earth’s axis wasn’t static and changed over time in terms relative to the solar plane. In 26,000 years, the north star should be Vega and not Polaris.

      Is that what’s being referenced as a “wobble?”

      http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/ast…..ssion.html

    3. More Wikipedia:

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

      The Milankovitch cycles are a set of cyclic variations in characteristics of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Each cycle has a different length, so at some times their effects reinforce each other and at other times they (partially) cancel each other.

      Past and future of daily average insolation at top of the atmosphere on the day of the summer solstice, at 65 N latitude.There is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice age. The present ice age is the most studied and best understood, particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for temperature and ice volume. Within this period, the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milankovi? orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted.

      1. Copypasta failure — so ingnore

        Past and future of daily average insolation at top of the atmosphere on the day of the summer solstice, at 65 N latitude.

      2. Interesting. Looks like this “Wikipedia” is on the web? I may have to give it a look.

        1. The quality of Wiki entries varies dramatically from topic to topic. This particular page has lots of external references.

    4. My question is, how do they know there was a wobble 8,000 years ago?

      The Earth can warm in 3 ways, more or less:

      1. The Sun grows brighter.
      2. The Earth gets closer to the Sun.
      3. The Earth absorbs more of the Sun’s heat.

      When #2 happens, if part of the Earth gets closer than the other part, the closest part gets much hotter than the farthest part. In the Holocene Thermal Maximum, we have evidence of Northern warming while the South basically remained unchanged. (The South would warm at a different time.) That’s good evidence of #2.

      1. Or we can come to the end of a particularly cool period, like the little ice age, and shit starts to warm all by itself.

  14. Actually “record low” depends on the time period under consideration.

    Wiki:

    There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth’s past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.

    1. The vast majority of the time over the last 5 billion years, the earth has been ice free.

      Our current situation, with ice at the poles, but not covering large tracts of north america and europe, is an anomoly.

      1. do I hear a counter-theory: global warming is not a problem, it is the Earth returning to its preferred state.

        1. Unfortunately, its preferred state and humans’ preferred state need not coincide.

          1. a warmer planet would bode well for man by, among other things, extending growing seasons and bringing large tracts of land back into agricultural utility. Man, unlike other creatures, has shown an innate ability to adapt to changing conditions. We’re the only species that lives in all corners of teh globe.

            1. Not likely. The tundra/taiga soils are not very fertile. When they melt, they don’t create amber waves of grain, they create huge swamps, much like the unproductive Irish bogs. Want to grow some corn in a cold swamp? Probably not.

              Moreover, warming disrupts the weather patterns we rely on. More warmth means both nastier droughts and nastier storms. By 2 C, our current drought in the Great Plains is essentially permanent, broken occasionally by incredibly ferocious thunderstorms. Good luck getting anything to grow there.

              1. So the “Dust Bowl” era could be repeated?

                I wonder if global warming accounted for the conditions that produced the Dust Bowl, and if so I assume the normal folks have somehow attributed this to anthropogenic sources?

        2. Humanity can and will suffer problems that result from the natural variations that occur in global temperature (which we may be influencing by an RCH), but it is unrealistic to think that we have any real influence on the global climate.

          1. For 50 years or so, we’ve had the power to instantly and dramatically alter the climate. All we had to do was set off all the atomic bombs at once. Easy.

            The fossil fuel era has been running 150 years at this point. Much longer than an instant.

            1. I have said repeatedly in the past that nuclear winter is the solution to AGW.

              1. Nuclear winter is bullshit.

          2. We probably have real influence.

            Whether we can choose that influence in any significant way, should try to, or what it’s worth to try, are entirely different questions.

            1. We may be amplifying a current warming trend. I do not believe that we have the ability to reverse a cooling trend. Althought we can always freeze the whole fucker up for a while with a few strategically place nuclear weapons.

  15. Could there be a similarity to this?

    Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time – and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.

    “Previous ocean models … have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place,” says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years’ worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica – the first ever to be taken.

    According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:

    It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

    The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted …

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…..t_melting/

    1. The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted[.]

      Deniers!!

  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

    “Uncertainty, especially before the 16th Century?”

    Uh, 1500-1700 marked a period of extreme, rapid temperature decline, following the Medieval Warm Period, which happened from about 950-1200.

    Was that date just a coincidence? I mean, we know a lot about what was happening in Greenland, but nothing about the Arctic?

    It seems, again, that the baselines and assumptions are pulled out of Michael Mann’s ass with a hockey stick.

    We can observe the melt right now, and we’ve been observing it for a while. But to say that it has not been like this for 8000 years, except, you know, for any time before 1500, which we know remarkably little about, considering that we often seem to know a lot about it, smacks of bullshit.

    That’s why people are skeptical — not of observable facts, but of interpretations of those facts that are metaphorical Swiss cheese.

  17. Too bad the satellite records from the ’30s were lost.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.