NASA: Melting, Darkening Arctic Ocean Turns Up Solar Heat by 5 Percent

Atop the world lies a thinning veil of ice. A gossamer lid covering a deep, dark Arctic Ocean. It is a reflector screen for incoming solar radiation during the months-long-day of Polar Summer. And a recent NASA study shows that this heat shield is starting to fail.

Ever since the late 1970s an Arctic warming at 2-3 times the rate of the rest of the globe has set off a 13.3 percent decline of sea ice at end summer during each and every following decade. And that cumulative loss is having an extraordinary impact. For the white, reflective ice cover by September has now, on average, fallen by nearly 50%. What remains is a thinner ice cover. One full of holes and interspersed with great and widening expanses of dark water.

Dark water and thinner, less contiguous, ice absorbs more of the sun’s heat. NASA notes that this added absorption can have far-flung impacts:

While sea ice is mostly white and reflects the sun’s rays, ocean water is dark and absorbs the sun’s energy at a higher rate. A decline in the region’s albedo – its reflectivity, in effect – has been a key concern among scientists since the summer Arctic sea ice cover began shrinking in recent decades. As more of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the climate system, it enhances ongoing warming in the region, which is more pronounced than anywhere else on the planet.

For years, polar scientists have been warning of signs this powerful amplifying feedback was speeding an already drastic warming for the Arctic environment. Now, a 15 year satellite survey conducted by NASA provides direct evidence that this is indeed the case — with the Arctic now absorbing 5% more incoming solar energy than it did in the year 2000.

Arctic Sea Ice Changes

(Click Image to Enlarge. Left frame shows summer sea ice fraction change with measures in dark blue showing a greater than 50% loss on average. Right frame shows changes in absorbed solar radiation with most of the Arctic showing a 5 watt per meter squared or greater increase in solar radiation absorption and sections of the Beaufort Sea peaking at 50 watts per meter squared additional solar radiation absorption. Image source: NASA.)

Averaged over the Arctic, the failing summer sea ice and newly revealed dark waters absorb an extra 10 watts per meter squared of solar heat radiation. That extra heat is equivalent to having a 10 watt light bulb burning on every square meter of the Arctic Ocean surface throughout the entire polar summer. Twenty four hours per day, seven days a week for the seasonal period.

In some regions, like the Beaufort Sea near Northern Canada and Alaska, the extra heat absorption is as much as 50 watts per meter squared greater than year 2000 levels. An extraordinary increase in Arctic Ocean heat uptake and, perhaps, one of the chief reasons why higher Latitude ocean surface temperatures have tended to range so high in recent years.

It’s a massive realignment of the Earth’s radiative balance and one that has occurred in only a relatively short period.

NASA scientists are quick to caution that to fully take into account climate variability, the study will need to continue for another 15 years. But when taking into account the massive 35 year drop off in sea ice since 1979, it appears likely that radiative balance changes are even greater than the 15 year NASA study indicates.

September Arctic Sea Ice Loss 1979-2014

(NSIDC sea ice extent losses for Arctic since 1979 showing a 13.3% decadal rate of decline. Image source: NSIDC. Note NSIDC adds a linear trend line. However, historic rates likely show a more rapidly down curving melt progression — see image below.)

Overall, this loss of sea ice and related increased heat absorption has pushed melt season onset times a full week sooner than 1982 onsets 32 years ago. Earlier melt season starts lead to more heat absorption — a classic feedback cycle also recognized in the new NASA report.

In addition, the report links added Arctic Ocean summer heat absorption to loss of older, thicker ice observed throughout the Arctic region. Since 2000, more than 1.4 million square kilometers of 3 meter or thicker ice has melted out of the Arctic Ocean system. That ice has been replaced by coverages of less than 2 meters in thickness — another aspect of amplifying warming feedbacks at play in the Arctic.

Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt Maryland, notes:

Having younger and thus thinner ice during winter makes the system more vulnerable to ice loss during the summer melt season.

Whether these amplifying feedbacks will result in ice free summer conditions sooner rather than later is still a matter of some discussion among scientists. Following the 13.3 percent per decade trend puts us at ice free summers sometime around 2030-2035. But the large swings in annual variability could result in an earlier year in which ice free conditions occur. In addition, some scientists assert that amplifying heat feedbacks in the Arctic are enough to result in ice free summers as soon as 2017 to 2020.

To this point it may be worth considering that the 13.3 percent per decade rate may be steepening as is hinted at in the below long term graph:

2014_sea_ice_NSIDC_extended

(Long term melt trend compiled by Larry Hamilton. Image source: Here.)

Regardless of timing, the historic loss of Arctic sea ice is already resulting in dramatic impacts to the Earth’s radiative balance and to the distribution of global surface heat absorption. A circumstance that a number of studies have implicated in changing Jet Stream patterns and enhanced meridional (north to south and south to north) air flows.

Links:

Satellites Measure Increase of Sun’s Energy Absorbed in the Arctic

2014 Melt Season in Review

Arctic Melt Trends

Hat tip to TodaysGuestIs

Leave a comment

73 Comments

  1. Phil S

     /  January 8, 2015

    Disappointing to see the linear decline still used given the amplifying feedbacks. What would a 5 or 10 year average look like when plotted against the extent (or volume) look like? Surely it would be more indicative of what’s going on up there.

    Reply
  2. Kevin Jones

     /  January 8, 2015

    Superb reporting yet again, Robert. Phil S: here’s what ( I hope) you’re looking for:

    htpps://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm

    Reply
  3. Kevin Jones

     /  January 8, 2015

    For Arctic novices: extent means area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice
    area means ice minus open water interspersed
    volume means volume-arguably the most important metric although all have their own story….

    Reply
  4. Colorado Bob

     /  January 8, 2015

    Fossil fuels: The ‘untouchable reserves’
    Is the “carbon bubble” wobbling in the face of a new assault? A paper in the journal Nature has lent support to the notion that combating climate change and developing more fossil fuels are mutually contradictory.

    Its key message is that keeping global temperature rise within 2C means leaving in the ground 80% of known coal reserves, 50% of gas and 30% of oil.

    The University College London authors invite investors to ponder whether $670bn, the amount they say was spent last year on seeking and developing fossil fuels, is a wise use of money if we can’t burn all the fuel we’ve already found.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30716664

    Reply
    • Just finished reading this one. Pretty staggering admission of how maniacal the fossil fuel industry currently is. What I see is money wasted that could be spent developing renewables and efficiencies…

      Reply
    • Two rather odd weather patterns ongoing right now. One includes the off-set circulation around Greenland with a strong meridional flow coming from about Florida Latitude and then swirling all the way up to Svalbard before getting sucked toward the pole. The other side of the pattern is the polar air displacement sweeping down over Canada.

      The second pattern is a kind of storm soup in the North Pacific where the storms that typically track across the ocean run up against the blocking high over the west coast of the US and then loop back toward the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. Instead of running across the Pacific, they’re doing race tracks around the North Pacific.

      It’s as if the two circulations — the one near Greenland and the one in NPAC are cut off from one another. The East-West progress of storms is interrupted in both cases and you have this strange south-north, north-south jockeying.

      Reply
      • Griffin

         /  January 8, 2015

        I remember when your first comment regarding the offset circulation around Greenland caused a bit of a stir. Well, it is still there and quite noticeable. I guess that says it all.🙂

        Reply
        • It’s a heat pump that pulls warmth into the Arctic and dumps remnant cold air into North America. It’s also the beginning of system changes that will result in some rather nasty weather if Hansen and Francis are correct. At least for this first step, it appears their initial findings are valid.

          I get flak because I support Francis. For some reason, there’s a lot of people lining up to give Francis flak.

          I think it might have something to do with this promotion of geo-engineering to mitigate current atmospheric changes. And I think a lot of scientists are not comfortable with letting that nasty genie out of the bottle. I agree with their discomfort. I agree that skipping to geo-engineering now could stall the necessary replacement of fossil fuels with renewables and current drives to increase efficiency and reduce consumption.

          But we can’t just ignore what’s happening because we are afraid of big money backed promos of geo-engineering. We should command this issue as ever more evidence to much more rapidly switch to renewables and dump the fossil fuel nightmare.

          Once that is completed, then we might look at geo-engineering and, in my view, only at atmospheric carbon capture.

  5. Peter Ward: “Engineering our way out is our only hope, that I can see, but engineering our way out will only work if we recognize the limitations of engineering our way out…that we have to take dire steps soon or it will be too late.”

    Reply
    • If we keep burning fossil fuels, there’s no way out. Geo-engineering is a good way to create more problems than you had initially without addressing the underlying issue — carbon emission. Add all the geo-engineering you can, all the added droughts, weather changes, all the added sacrifice zones in India, Africa and around the equator. All the failure to address ocean acidification and the loss of ocean food for hundreds of millions of human beings. Add all that to the geo-engineering future that a number of billionaires, including the oil industry, keep promoting and you still end up with warming in the end because these guys will burn and burn and burn til doomsday eroding all the watts per meter squared of mitigation over the years until the sky is a soup of milky white. No stars are visible at night from anywhere on Earth and crop production and solar panel efficiency are down because we blocked out the sun. All to extend the lifespan of crappy fuels.

      Denmark runs 40 percent if its electricity on renewables now. Increasing numbers of states and countries are pushing further and further away from fossil fuels. We should not take our eye off that goal. We can’t afford to lose more decades on ‘solutions’ that simply make the base situation worse. Geo engineering is an emergency stop gap with terrible consequences. It’s like the worst form of chemo therapy for the cancer patient. It has no chance of long term success if the patient keeps swallowing poison.

      The essential action is to stop burning fossil fuels and dumping carbon into the atmosphere. Failing that, there’s no way out.

      Reply
    • And if Guy McPherson is serious about saving lives he needs to set the example by stopping this nonsense talk-talk about how oil is a ‘master fuel’ step back from a fossil fuel centric worldview, go vegan, and for god’s sake stop flying on airplanes. If he wants to show the world he’s serious about saving lives, that’s what he needs to do. Promote solutions rather than intentionally or unintentionally provide cover for those who promote the monstrous choice that is geo-engineering.

      I am very disappointed in Dr. Ward if he’s jumping on this bandwagon. A false choice if I’ve ever seen one.

      What is the primary failure of the tragic hero? Hubris. What’s the root cause of hubris? Blindness. And where oh where do we keep finding rationalization so for this tragic blindness? Someone trying to rig things in order to make a profit.

      Geo-engineering will make people like Gates rich, breathe undead life into the fossil fuel companies, result in suffering for billions and extend the age of dangerous burning just long enough to set off the kind of new Permian extinction Ward talked about. Want to get to 1,000 + ppm CO2. Geo-engineering.

      The only geo-engineering solution that may have some viability is atmospheric carbon capture. But money spent on that technology is more effective, dollar for dollar, simply being spent to replace fossil fuels with renewables.

      Rapid cuts to zero emissions. Then atmospheric carbon capture if need be. But none of this breathing false life into the zombie fossil fuels. That is a path to very, very bad outcomes.

      EDIT:

      Sorry Mike, we won’t have any more fossil fuel company and billionaire-based geoengineering promotion here.

      AMEG and GM have long seemed a bit too cozy with the oil industry and their geoengineering outgrowth to me for some time now. But this seals it. Good luck with your attacks on renewable energy as unsubsidized wind out competes coal and unsubsidized solar out competes natural gas this year.

      There is no excuse for this industry to continue. Not with the climate change we are facing. Not with the obvious economic trends even with the barest support by governments and the most staunch opposition by oil industry fed critics, which sadly appears to include yourself.

      Yes, the truth does hurt — the oil industry. It’s a zombie that has lived long past its natural life span. One that continues to attempt dominance despite the harm it is causing. Part of this program is an attempt at issues dominance. The first attempt was the relatively successful peak oil canard. Now the cynical use of the climate situation in order to promote geo-engineering.

      Your role in this is shameful, especially considering the fact that you could have an otherwise positive influence if you promoted responsible replacement of fossil fuels rather than what amounts to a combination of continued fossil fuel dependence and an ever expanding poverty. Both you and Guy have used my work when it suited your ends. And so it has been perverted. You will probably continue to do that. But not with my support.

      So you can take these board room baked talking points and walk with them. The corporate/oil company/billionaire promotions of dangerous geo-engineering nonsense are not acceptable here.

      Reply
  6. Reblogged this on jpratt27.

    Reply
  7. Michael n

     /  January 8, 2015

    The most depressing thing when it comes to this blog or article, is the fact only 5 concerned individuals actual bothered to discuss the topic after reading it. Read a sports or intertainment piece and you get hundreds responding. We must be the most foolish of animals.

    Reply
  8. Michael n

     /  January 8, 2015

    Spelling mistake. Entertainment not intertainment. I know it’s just a simple mistake but sometime like that is important.
    Cheers

    Reply
  9. I should just give up writing today. Last sentence in previous reply is also rubbish. Meant to write, sometimes little things like spelling is important. Cool, finished. I’ll go away now.

    Reply
    • Cheers Michael. Typos in heartfelt comments are certainly forgivable😉 and you’re right, escapism may well be a defining feature of our age. Reality is rough these days.

      Reply
  10. Mark from New England

     /  January 8, 2015

    It’s as cold in southern New Hampshire now as northern Norway! I take it that’s not normal. Out into the -4 F ice box soon…

    Reply
    • climatehawk1

       /  January 8, 2015

      Speaking from central Vermont, seems like a normal cold snap, though very short.

      Reply
    • I have screen shots of the same temperature in Richmond VA and a place about 200 miles south of the North Pole and well north of both Greenland and Svalbard. Taken last night…

      Reply
  11. Andy in San Diego

     /  January 8, 2015

    41F (5C) in Stockholm Sweden, 20F (-7C) in Pensacola Florida.

    Reply
  12. Andy in San Diego

     /  January 8, 2015

    Daily MASIE image of sea ice. I think the notable take away is around Alaska. If you look at the depletion off the north bank it will match up quite well with the air temp anomaly we’ve seen all winter over on climate reanalyzer.

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/png/masie_all_zoom_v01_2014316_4km.png

    If we then work in the shift of the thick ice to the Canadian Archipelago it does seem to paint a grim picture.

    Reply
  13. Steve

     /  January 8, 2015

    More reports of earthquakes around fracking sites. I wonder how long it will take before it triggers one that really causes destruction and worry.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/07/26-earthquakes-later-fracking-s-smoking-gun-is-in-texas.html

    Reply
  14. Greg Smith

     /  January 8, 2015

    A detailed well map for the North Dakota “Boom”. If you zoom in you can detail every well. All told the entire drilling length would circle the globe. Gives one perspective on our greed as well as engineering might, given the right incentives. According to one of the drilling engineers there “Your grandchildren’s grandchildren won’t see the end of the oil running out in North Dakota” Let’s pray he’s wrong.

    https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/wiredmaplab.khoba8jj/page.html?access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoid2lyZWRtYXBsYWIiLCJhIjoiVXNSbEtxSSJ9.zTF03t8ogjPIEAouNzT4-Q#9/48.1285/-102.9886

    Reply
    • climatehawk1

       /  January 8, 2015

      Worth noting also that the amount of electricity generated by wind power in the USA last year was equal to what could be generated by burning all the coal in a train 9,000 miles long. Yet wind generated only 4% of U.S. electricity, while coal generated about 40%. The implication is that we burned enough coal last year to fill a train 90,000 miles long, or stretching around the earth nearly 4 times.

      Reply
      • That’s rather horrific. US needs to cut that out.

        Reply
      • Meaning — more wind and solar, less coal.

        Saw that battery storage prices fell by 25 percent this year. Hopefully in time to help Japan with its transition. Looks like we might see another drop of 30 percent in the next two years.

        Reply
    • Assuming our grandchildren are born in 2025… We’re talking about our grandchildren’s grandchildren supposedly living til 2150. If we keep burning the oil, there’s a decent chance the grandchildren’s grandchildren won’t be around to see it. If they are, it’s quite certain they’ll be cursing us for burning it.

      Reply
  15. Colorado Bob

     /  January 8, 2015

    This came out a few weeks back , but this Univ. of Washington press release has a few new details –
    Seafloor melting releases giant plume of methane off Washington coast
    Global warming may seem like an abstract phenomenon, but it is causing major changes now being seen in the Pacific Northwest.

    UW researchers are studying a methane plume off the warming Washington coast to try to understand its impact on different depths of the water column and potentially, the surface.

    They have found that water off the coast is warming about half a degree each year, which is enough to melt the frozen, ice-like compounds of hydrate on the seafloor. Methane has built up in the hydrate over time, but the warming temperatures released it into the water column.

    “Each year, the same amount of methane is released off the coast as the Deep[water] Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,” H. Paul Johnson said, a UW professor of oceanography. “If it continues to warm, by 2100 it will be four times that amount.”

    http://dailyuw.com/archive/2015/01/08/science/seafloor-melting-releases-giant-plume-methane-washington-coast#.VK6hXHtlT6M

    Reply
    • Looks like we are in the range of 300,000 tons of methane per year from this region. Looking at more than a megaton each year by end century. Add it to the growing tally of Arctic seabed methane, Arctic permafrost methane, Arctic permafrost CO2, burning tropical forests CO2, and a falling ability of the ocean to uptake CO2 and you’ve got a bit of a mess.

      Active ocean methane release zones:

      1. ESAS
      2. Laptev
      3. Kara
      4. Svalbard
      5. Nares Strait
      6. East Coast US Continental Shelf
      7. West Coast US Washington and Oregon

      And that’s just what we’ve identified.

      Reply
  16. Colorado Bob

     /  January 8, 2015

    Warm Winter Projection Could Hurt Ski Season, Drought Recovery

    Late last month, the season’s first snow measurement was only about half of what it would be in a normal year, despite near record rainfall in the Bay Area during the early part of December.
    “The problem with the recent storm in December is that it blew in on fairly warm weather and so what precipitation did fall, didn’t fall as snow. It fell as rain,” said Doug Carlson, information officer at the California Department of Water Resources.

    The long term outlook from the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center suggests that while the three month outlook suggests higher than normal rainfall is likely, we are even more likely to see warmer than normal temperatures for the rest of winter. Here’s a look at the precipitation outlook for the rest of winter, with darker green indicating higher likelihood of above average rain:

    Reply
  17. Colorado Bob

     /  January 8, 2015

    By the numbers: Warmest year on Ariz. record

    Did last year feel warm to you? 2014 in Phoenix went down in the record books as the warmest year ever. The average overall temperature was 77.1 degrees, breaking the old record of 76.9 set back in 1989. 2014 comes in as the warmest year over 1989, 2012, and 2007 all which had overall temperatures slightly above 76 degrees.

    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/01/08/12news-arizona-warmest-year/21401377/

    Reply
  18. Colorado Bob

     /  January 8, 2015

    More than 400 millimetres of rain has fallen in 24 hours on the remote WA community of Cape Leveque on the tip of the Dampier Peninsula in the Kimberley.

    The Kooljaman wilderness camp recorded the rainfall total, which almost doubles the existing January rainfall record at the site of 239.8mm in 2012.

    Glenn Cook from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) said the figure was so extreme it had to be double-checked.

    On closer investigation he realised the figure was even higher than 400mm.

    “We understand from speaking to the observer that the rain gauge actually overflowed,” he said.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-08/remote-cape-leveque-in-kimberley-receives-record-rainfall/6007442

    Reply
  19. Griffin

     /  January 8, 2015

    Does anyone have an idea of how much the energy imbalance caused by the albedo reduction has affected the global energy imbalance as a whole?
    I am curious as to how close Professor Wadhams was with his estimations made in 2012 about this very subject.
    http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/07/albedo-change-in-arctic.html

    Reply
  20. I hadn’t realized how big a problem sea level rise is for Ireland. Kind of obvious really seeing it’s an island!

    Reply
  21. Colorado Bob

     /  January 8, 2015

    Algae blooms create their own favorable conditions
    Date:
    January 8, 2015
    Source:
    Dartmouth College
    Summary:
    Fertilizers are known to promote the growth of toxic cyanobacterial blooms in freshwater and oceans worldwide, but a new multi-institution study shows the aquatic microbes themselves can drive nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in a combined one-two punch in lakes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150108084849.htm

    Reply
  22. Andy in San Diego

     /  January 8, 2015
    Reply
  23. Andy in San Diego

     /  January 8, 2015

    Henry Cisneros: We’re Hitting ‘Point Of No Return’ On Climate Change

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/henry-cisneros-were-hitting-point-no-return-climate-change-n281996

    Reply
  24. Reblogged this on GarryRogers Nature Conservation and commented:
    Global circulation of air and water influenced by factors such as latitude, land and sea size, altitude, and albedo determines climatic conditions. It explains, for instance, why the Atacama Desert is so dry. Melting sea ice and warming Polar Regions will alter circulation. What comes next? And when does it arrive?

    Reply
  25. Colorado Bob

     /  January 9, 2015

    “The paleoclimate record shouts out to us that, far from being self-stabilizing, the Earth’s climate system is an ornery beast which overreacts even to small nudges,” climate scientist Wallace Broecker said in 1995.

    Joe Romm is replying to one of George Will’s usual climate op-eds, this one is on paleoclimate. It seems George read a couple of new books about the deniers 2 favorite periods in Earth history, ( drum roll please ) ……………. The Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. Joe cuts him to pieces .

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/08/3609346/george-will-climate-backwards/

    Reply
    • How can George retain any credibility? What utter nonsense.

      Reply
      • Colorado Bob

         /  January 9, 2015

        Because he loves the FUCKING Cubs , And he is seen as some American poet.

        If he loves losers , he dosen’t understand America .

        Mr. Will is biggest Cub Fan in America. They haven’t won the World Since 1908.

        His Cubs bullshit romance , it not part of his America modern romance.

        Another rich man just cashing a check .

        I have a nickle , for the first man we can fine that a rich man is cashing a check.

        Reply
      • climatehawk1

         /  January 9, 2015

        More important q: why does the Washington Post, which publishes editorials lamenting lack of action on climate change, continue to publish this drivel? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

        Reply
    • climatehawk1

       /  January 9, 2015

      Thanks, tweet scheduled.

      Reply
  26. Colorado Bob

     /  January 9, 2015

    Mr. Wills is in love failure, that’s his game.

    Reply
  27. Colorado Bob

     /  January 9, 2015

    The country does not care if your right by as little as one atom . What it want’s this current bullshit of the day.

    Somewhere all the dead Greeks are clapping.

    Reply
    • Ah, I think at least half the bullshit people love is candy coated. If monied interests didn’t pay so much to have their BS sweetened, people wouldn’t sop it up.

      Reply
    • And it looks like we are back to over 400 PPM CO2. One more year and then we might never see the 300s again.

      Reply
    • Ah, and now coal companies are selling coal to themselves to get more subsidies:

      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/07/3609210/coal-companies-selling-to-themselves/

      But I thought only renewables got subsidies😉

      Reply
      • climatehawk1

         /  January 9, 2015

        Right, only renewables, and that is definite proof they are not competitive and should be allowed to go under.

        Reply
        • I found it to be kind of a poetic justice that when the wind subsidy was cut, wind still beat coal on new installed capacity additions and that, even unsubsidized and competing with still subsidized coal, wind ended up costing less.

          Solar V nat gas is in the same situation now. At current trends, more economic than coal by 2017.

          The contrarian arguments were never good when it came to renewables. Now they are starting to become as laughable as climate change denial. A fossil fuel marketing dollars-created mythology.

        • climatehawk1

           /  January 9, 2015

          Correct. The maddening thing is, we’re not arguing over whether renewables will take over, we’re arguing over the speed of the transition. Ending the wind subsidy just slows it down, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.

        • The current crop of republicans appear bound and determined to delay progress as much as possible and to kill projects when they are able. At some point, their political/monetary support will dry up. But can we afford the time it takes for that to happen?

          I must say, for the current conditions, though. Things appear to be moving rather rapidly.

  28. Kevin Jones

     /  January 9, 2015

    The picture of a snake eating its’ tail comes to mind.

    Reply
    • climatehawk1

       /  January 9, 2015

      Just an understandable misimpression. Actually, it has its head up its butt.

      Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: