Greenland update for 2010: record melting and a massive calving event
No humans were present on the morning of August 4, 2010, in a remote fjord in Northwest Greenland, when the air vibrated with a thunderous crack as one of the largest icebergs in world history calved from the Petermann Glacier, the island's second largest ocean-terminating glacier. Where the glacier meets the sea, a 43 mile-long tongue of floating ice existed at the beginning of 2010. On August 4 2010, a quarter of this 43 mile-long tongue of floating ice fractured off, spawning a 100 square mile ice island four times the size of Manhattan, with a thickness half that of the Empire State building. According to Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware's College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, the freshwater stored in this ice island could have kept the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years, or kept all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days. There was speculation that the ice island could find its way into the open Atlantic Ocean in two years, and potentially pose a threat to oil platforms and ships. However, as the ice island made its turn to get from the narrow Petermann Fjord to enter Nares Strait between Greenland and Canada, the mighty iceberg split into thousands of small icebergs that will not pose an unusual threat to shipping when they emerge into the Atlantic.
Figure 1. The 100 square-mile ice island that broke off the Petermann Glacier heads out of the Petermann Fjord in this image taken by NASA's Aqua satellite on August 21, 2010. Image credit: NASA. I've constructed a 7-frame satellite animation available here that shows the calving and break-up of the Petermann Glacier ice island. The animation begins on August 5, 2010, and ends on September 21, with images spaced about 8 days apart. The images were taken by NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites.
Petermann Glacier spawned smaller ice islands in 2001 (34 square miles) and in 2008 (10 square miles). In 2005, the Ayles Ice Shelf, about 60 miles to the west of Petermann Glacier, disintegrated and became a 34 square-mile ice island. The August 2010 Petermann Glacier calving event created the largest iceberg observed in the Arctic since 1962, when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf on the north coast of Canada's Ellesmere Island calved off a massive 230 square mile chunk. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf also calved off a huge 21 square mile ice island a few days after the August 2010 Petermann Glacier calving event. According to an article in livescience.com, "Driftwood and narwhal remains found along the Ellesmere coast have radiocarbon dates from roughly 3,000 to 6,800 years ago, implying that the ice has been intact since those remains were deposited." All of the these calving events are evidence that the ice sheets in the Arctic are responding as one would expect to significantly warmer temperatures.
Warmer ocean temperatures cause significant melting of Greenland's glaciers
At a talk last December at the world's largest conference on climate change, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, glacier expert Eric Rignot of UC-Irvine implicated ocean warming as a key reason for the calving of the Petermann Glacier's ice island. The ocean waters near the glacier have warmed by 1 - 2°C over the past three years, he said, and all of the periphery of Greenland has seen ocean heat increases in recent years, with the result that 20 - 80% of all the mass lost by Greenland's glaciers in recent years could be attributed to melting of the glaciers by warmer waters attacking them from beneath. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, and far warmer than the previous record of 1.5°C above average set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s. A study earlier this year published in the journal Science (Spielhagen et al., 2011) found that ocean temperatures on the east side of Greenland are now at their warmest levels in at least 2,000 years. The researchers studied a sediment core containing fossil remains of planktic foraminifers, which vary as a function of water temperature. The study noted that not only have the waters flowing northward on the east side of Greenland warmed significantly, the volume of water flowing north has also increased, resulting in a large transport of heat into the Arctic. "Such an increased heat input has far-reaching consequences," they wrote.
Figure 2. Departure of sea surface temperature from average for 2010 from the NOAA Daily Optimum Interpolation SST Anomaly data set for October 2010. Areas colored red are warmer than the 1971-2000 average, areas colored blue are cooler than that average. A large region of record warm water temperatures extended along the west coast of Greenland, leading to record warm air temperatures and record melting along the western portion of Greenland in 2010. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, surpassing the previous record of 1.5°C set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s. Image credit: NOAA Visualization Lab.
Record warmth and melting in Greenland during 2010
Greenland's climate in 2010 was marked by record-setting high air temperatures, the greatest ice loss by melting since accurate records began in 1958, and the greatest mass loss of ocean-terminating glaciers on record. That was the conclusion of the 2010 Arctic Report Card, a collaborative effort between NOAA and European Arctic experts that comes out each year. Was 2010 the warmest year in Greenland's history? That is difficult to judge. We know it was also very warm in the late 1920s and 1930s in Greenland, but we only have two stations, Godtahab Nuuk and Angmagssalik, with weather records that go back that far (Figure 3.) Godtahab Nuuk set a record high in 2010, but temperatures at Angmagssalik in 2010 were similar to what was observed during several years in the 1920s and 1930s. Marco Tedesco of the City College of New York's Cryosphere Processes Laboratory remarked that last year's record warmth and melting in Greenland began when an unusually early spring warm spell reduced and "aged" the snow on the surface of the ice sheet, so that the snow became less reflective, allowing it to absorb more heat from the sun. This accelerated snow melt even further, exposing the bare ice, which is less reflective than snow and absorbs more heat. This feedback loop extended Greenland's record melting season well into the fall.
Figure 3. Historic temperatures in Greenland for the six stations with at least 50 years of data, as archived by NASA. Three of the six stations set record highs in 2010. However, only two of the six stations (Godtahab Nuuk and Angmagssalik) have data going back beyond the 1930s, which was a period of warmth in Greenland similar to the warmth of the current decade. Godtahab Nuuk set a record high in 2010, but 2003 still ranks as Angmagssalik's hottest year on record.
Figure 4. The 2010 summer melt season was lasted more than 40 days longer (purple colors) than the mean melt season from 1979 - 2007. Image credit: Arctic Report Card.
Why Greenland matters: sea level rise
The major concern with a warming climate in Greenland is melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which currently contributes about 25% of the observed 3 mm/year (1.2 inches per decade) global rise in sea level. Higher sea levels mean increased storm surge inundation, coastal erosion, loss of low-lying land areas, and salt water contamination of underground drinking water supplies. Greenland ice mass loss is accelerating over the long term, according to independent estimates using three different techniques (Figure 5), with more mass being lost each year than the previous year. According to Rignot et al., 2011, ice mass loss is also accelerating in Antarctica, and "the magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level rise in the 21st century." As I discussed in a 2009 blog post, How much will global sea level rise this century?, the IPCC in 2007 estimated that global sea level would rise 0.6 - 1.9 feet by 2100, but several studies since then predict a higher range of 1.6 - 6.6 feet.
During the warm period 125,000 years ago, before the most recent ice age, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted. This melting plus the melting of other smaller Arctic ice fields is thought to have caused 7.2 - 11.2 feet (2.2 - 3.4 meters) of the 13 - 20 foot (4 - 6 meter) sea level rise observed during that period. Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3°C by 2100, to levels similar to 125,000 years ago. If this level of warming occurs, we can expect sea levels to rise 13 - 20 feet several centuries from now. There's enough water locked away in the ice sheet to raise sea level to rise 23 feet (7 meters), should the entire Greenland ice sheet melt.
Figure 5. Loss of mass from Greenland's ice sheet in gigatons per year from 1992 through 2009, as computed from satellite gravity measurements from the GRACE satellites (red line) and from a mass balance method. The mass balance method computes the amount of snow on the surface, the amount of ice mass lost to wind and melt, and the amount of ice lost computed from glacier velocity and ice thickness. Adding together these terms gives the total amount of ice lost or gained over the ice sheet. The acceleration is given in gigatons per year squared. Another paper by Zwally et al. (2011) used a third method, laser satellite altimetry, to determine Greenland mass loss. Between 2003 to 2007, the ice sheet lost 171 gigatons of mass per year. Between 1992 to 2002, Greenland was only losing only 7 gigatons per year. Image credit: Rignot et al., 2011, Geophysical Research Letters.
References
Rignot, E., et al., 2011: Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, in press, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583.
Spielhagen, et al., 2011, Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water, Science 28 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6016 pp. 450-453 DOI: 10.1126/science.1197397
Zwally, J., et al., 2011, Greenland ice sheet mass balance: distribution of increased mass loss with climate warming; 2003 - 07 versus 19922 - 2002, Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 57, No. 201, 2011.
Wunderground's climate change section has a Greenland web page with detailed information and references.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 — Blog Index
Scientifically speaking, pretty much everything that has reviewed solid evidence is a theory. Some theories are so solid that they're practically unchallengeable, however they are still theories. Math gets proven, science gets evidence. Theories without evidence are just hypotheses.
Global warming is a real observable fact. The temperatures have been rising both across surface and satellite measurements. But global warming isn't a theory, it is an observation.
AGW is a theory proposed to explain the observation of rising temperatures. It is well supported, with plenty of research to back it up. There is a high level of confidence that humans are either a major proponent or the sole proponent in causing the globe to warm.
Is the theory on solid ground? Yes. Has it made useful predictions? Yes. Is it "proven"? No. It's currently the best explanation we have that fits the observations, but even now new discoveries are being made and new research is being done to better hone it and improve it. New theories are being added, others are being modified, and still others are being thrown out. It's an area of active research.
The real question when it comes to science is whether there is enough evidence to act on the predictions made by a theory. In the case of AGW, according to our best science on the subject, the answer is yes.
Good.
Great explanation, that makes perfect sense.
Wait a minute? What is there to debate? As long as there is 1 human being on this planet he or she has an input on the temperature. Insignificant? Absolutely. Let's try 6.8 billion, maybe that will have a grander effect.
As far as I am aware, there is no debate that humans do or don't contribute to the temperature of our planet. Because they obviously do.
The only debatable topic is, is our planet warming. That's a tough question because to say it is warming now means you know it will be warmer in the future. It has been warming. And likely will continue.
Another debatable thing is how responsible humans are for the current warming. Assuming none of the natural variables are changing, we'd be 100% responsible. That isn't likely to be the case, but solar input really hasn't changed, so it is likely mostly human happening.
One last thing up for debate is the effect a warmer climate posses on weather events such as hurricanes, snow storms, etc.
But once again, there is no debate on whether or not humans are contributing to the warmth, everything in Earth's system plays some role, no matter how small, on Earth's temperature.
Abstract: Bayesian statistical models were developed for the number of tropical cyclones and the rate at which these cyclones became hurricanes in the North Atlantic. We find that, controlling for the cold tongue index and the North Atlantic oscillation index, there is high probability that the number of cyclones has increased in the past thirty years; but the rate at which these storms become hurricanes appears to be constant. We also investigate storm intensity by measuring the distribution of individual storm lifetime in days, storm track length, and Emanuel's power dissiptation index. We find little evidence that the distribution of individual storm intensity is changing through time. Any increase in cumulative yearly storm intensity and potential destructiveness, therefore, is due to the increasing number of storms and not due to any increase in the intensity of individual storms.
PDF Link
Levi, you are beginning to sound like me with your responses. That's not nice. LOL
he's got a point...the concept of global warming is global
More specifically, the percent of cause.
Causes for warming have already been defined (maybe not all of them), humans being one of them.
I'm pretty sure changes in gas concentrations changes the radioactive feedbacks in the atmosphere. The debate is whether we really know exactly how. So far, 20th century warming has not exceeded normal holocene interglacial variation (discussed here).
I'm pretty sure I can also say with confidence that squirrel population has an effect on the Earth's temperature.
Polar vortexes are driven by the temperature gradient. That's why the jetstream exists. Reduce the gradient and you weaken the vortex. That's exactly what happens in the summer hemisphere when the polar region warms up a whole lot relative to the equator.
Link
So nobody wants to shred this item I placed up for sacrifice the other day with respect to contribution to the warming ? C'mon, its easy math stuff, no?
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
Interesting point. If trends continue, however...
And squirrels, do indeed have an effect.
Well no. Polar amplification could mean more negative AO-type modes which shift the greatest gradient farther south, increasing baroclinic snowstorms, before the entire system was overwhelmed and snow decreased everywhere.
But....IPCC models project a strengthening of the arctic vortex, and thus a more positive AO with time. An interesting note is that it is currently disobeying that trend for the last 20 years.
As far as erratic behavior, I don't know what you mean, but we are far from fully understanding how the polar annular modes work.
Ummm...what? If you feel the need to snipe, would you be so kind as to be specific? Or are you just unhappy with me calling you out earlier? (I'm gonna go with 'B'). To rehash, 1) I posted a link to an article that just yesterday hit the news, and tomorrow is being opened for commentary by all comers. 2) Out of what I can only assume is a burning need to score points off of me, you responded with "Recycled news", and a linkg to a seven-year old snippet where the discovery was announced in brief. 3) I responded by outlining the clear difference between that to which I'd linked, and that to which you'd linked. 4) You responded by linking to a ridiculous but expected snide remark from the anti-science site WUWT that basically thrashed Fox News more than it did the original article to which I'd linked. 5) I called you out on that, and 6) now you respond by accusing me of "completely avoiding the obvious questionable nature of what you boasted as undeniably quality stuff".
Right...
I have to say, with your frequent and increasingly bizarre accusations of wrongdoing on my part--am I a pseudonym? Where do I live? How much does Dr. Masters pay me to post?--I've come to the conclusion that you've developed an unhealthy fascination with me. For the good of the blog, I'm going to make you the sole occupant of my ignore list, and respectfully beg you on bended knee to do the same with me. Thanks.
Edited to add: note that I never said the article was correct, or would be proven as such; I merely stated that if it were proven true, it would be one of the most monumental scientific discoveries of all time. I still stand by that.
So what exactly remains to be debated regarding the "AGW theory"? Please correct me where you think I am wrong...
Debatable things:
The effects of a warmer climate are obviously debatable. (Though from the looks of it, you have a great grasp on the changes spawned by a warmer planet)
The amount humans are contributing is obviously debatable. However, that will likely never be answerable. (By answerable, I also mean 100% accurate)
Whether or not we will be warmer in the future and how much warmer we will be in the future is debatable, because we can't say for certain we will be warmer in the future.
Not debatable things:
Whether or not we have warmed, is not debatable. Everything indicates warming, the only discrepancy is how much we've warmed.
Whether or not humans are contribute to the temperature of our planet is not debatable.
Whether or not humans are contributing to the change in the temperature of our planet is not debatable. (Note, the amount we are contributing is debatable)
Did I miss anything?
Did I miss anything?
You're right! One of you is enough. ;)
Oh, Hi Gro.
and now I gotta worry about the damn squirrels, too?
You are dealing with convolution of your multitudes of negative and attacking responses to posts. Perhaps if you did not carry such a big chip on your shoulder and not demean and taunt others regularly, you would be more likable. I don't see that happening however. :( Pffft!
Actually had one come knock on our patio door this afternoon. :O
Should I be frightened?
Looks like he has rabies...I'd be concerned
Does anybody disagree with this? Skeptics and Deniers, any input?
If not then we should no longer be debating whether or not humans are contributing to the warming, and we should not be debating if we have been warming.
The only things to debate (assuming everyone agrees with the quote above) are the effects of a warmer planet, the amount humans are responsible for this warming trend, and whether or not we will be warmer in the future.
No, had one of those - "Homeless veteran, anything will help. God bless" signs. The two $150 pairs of shoes was a dead give away though. Sent it on it's way. Might have fallen for it if it had a cute dog on a leash though. ;)
I heard it was false, but in any matter, what is wrong with trying to find extraterrestrial life?
I think I'm going nuts
Well, that would explain the picture you posted. That was pure excitement.
"MY GAWD, would you look at the size of that NUT!!!!!!!"
oh great...not to mention the silly string map'o'death
g'nite my friends
Any mention of the Tornado that killed a young mother and left 40houses uninhabitable and another 60 possibly the same.
Also, what's going on off the coast of Oregon, 3 quakes at not much depth, 4.6, 4.8 and 4.9. slow release of energy I hope.
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\
'Night!
flash flood warning for a levee failure in west-central Daviess County in southwest Indiana until 11:15 p.m.
A levee on the White River, just west of Capehart near County Road 700 North, has failed causing flash flooding of immediately surrounding areas.
I know of very few people who bother debating that it has warmed during the last 100 years. It has, though there are still contested issues with our surface station records that are yet unresolved.
I agree with most of what you listed there. However, one must be careful not to let connotation get attached to the phrase "Not debatable things: Whether or not humans are contribute to the temperature of our planet is not debatable."
That is as true as saying any ____ contributes to the temperature of the planet. Of course we do just like every part of the Earth system does. The debate is over how much, specifically whether we stick out as an abnormally significant influence against the climatic normal before our technology developed. I personally don't know and can't say with confidence that either we do or we don't. If sufficient empirical evidence comes to light (most of that being just waiting and observing) I will be right there supporting the theory. I'm just in the camp that we have a long way to go yet to come close to proving it, and that for the moment there is more than enough evidence supporting the null hypothesis.
One of the strongest La Niña’s on record has ensured summer 2010-11 has been the second wettest on record for Australia.
The average rainfall across Australia was 354.7mm, 70% above normal. Only the summer of 1973-74 saw more rain when an average of 419.8mm fell across the nation.
La Niña caused extensive flooding through the east and north of Australia over summer. The Murray Darling Basin recorded its third wettest summer on record following a decade in drought.
Looking ahead into autumn, the La Niña is now past its peak and has been weakening since early January.
“Until the Pacific Ocean returns to neutral in winter, marking the official end of the current La Niña, we can expect above average rain to continue over most of the country,” says Tom Saunders, Meteorologist at The Weather Channel.
The 111 years of records available show that:
Victoria recorded its wettest summer on record
Western Australia recorded its second wettest summer
South Australia recorded its third wettest summer
New South Wales recorded its fifth wettest summer
Queensland recorded its sixth wettest summer
Northern Territory recorded its eighth wettest summer
Tasmania recorded its seventeenth wettest summer
and thats the game
Speaking at an Australian Institute of Company Directors lunch in Sydney, Mr Mortimer said there would be no need to compensate trade-exposed industries or households under a consumption-based tax, as proposed by Access Economics' Geoff Carmody, "as it simply defeats the purpose of trying to drive behavioural change".
The proceeds of the carbon tax could be used to mitigate the risks of climate change - for example "to pay for the critical infrastructure which will be impacted by global warming and severe weather events".
Advertisement: Story continues below
Leighton Holdings is the world's largest contract coal miner and a member of the Australian industry greenhouse network.
Mr Mortimer asked whether there would be a time "that companies which mine coal are treated as pariahs by investors and financiers and subject to significant regulatory constraint, like the tobacco industry".
Mr Mortimer said he hoped the new carbon price framework delivered energy security at a competitive price.
OFFICIALS worked today to get people back into their homes a day after a tornado ripped through a south-western Louisiana town, killing a mother shielding her child from the fierce winds and leaving 12 hurt.
Many of the 1500 residents who had been evacuated were being allowed to return to their homes in this community about 112km west of Baton Rouge, said Rayne Police Chief Carroll Stelly.
"If they have power and they have no barricade tape, they can sleep the night away," Chief Stelly said.
However, about 100 damaged homes were still barricaded off. Forty were uninhabitable and 60 hadn't been inspected yet, Chief Stelly said.
Some 150 homes had been damaged or destroyed as winds topped out at 217km/h, leaving at least 12 with injuries that were not life-threatening.
Pauline Patton, 64, and her husband, Howard, were at their apartment when she looked out the window and saw a funnel cloud bearing down on them. Suddenly, the power went out. Rainwater poured through the ceiling. Everything went black. It was like a bomb exploding as it passed over them, she said.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"It just happened so fast," she said. "You couldn't hardly see nothing. Everything was dark."
The couple were having lunch at the fire station-turned-shelter, courtesy of the Red Cross. They weren't sure when - or if - they'll be able to move back into the apartment.
The home where Jalisa Granger, 21, had died was completely crushed by part of an oak tree. Ms Granger, her toddler son and her mother all had to be pulled from the wreckage by neighbours and relatives on Saturday, said Maxine Trahan, a spokeswoman for the Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office. The area hit hardest was composed of mostly low- to moderate-income homes.
"My heart goes out to the residents because a lot of them don't have any insurance," Ms Trahan said. "So where do they begin?"
Today, a cat stretched on top of the demolished home where Ms Granger had been, sunning itself. Elsewhere, people's mud-soaked belongings had been strewn about the streets. Emergency workers had been spray-painting symbols on homes that they had checked. Splintered wood, glass shards and metal littered yards, while aluminum siding had been wrapped around trees.
The only sound was the occasional hum of a chainsaw in the distance, being used to cut downed tree limbs from power lines.
Meanwhile, the police chief asked people to be patient while officials worked to make sure it was safe for people to come back to their homes or retrieve belongings. Chief Stelly said they had not decided when to let people back in to the section of town that had been closed off.
Of the 1500 displaced, only about 25 stayed in a shelter set up at a local fire station.
Well, I agree with what you just said, so it looks like we agree.
And yea, most people who know at least something about weather and climate will not debate that we have been warming or that humans don't contribute to the temperature of our planet.
However, the people in the uneducated masses on the subject will frequently say, "last winter we had record low temps and snow, Global Warming isn't real." Or they'll say, "Humans are too small to have any effect on temperature."
That's why included that.
so jason how many names you going too make this year??? has far has i no you are a name spamer i still have 9 of your names on my Ignore ueser from last year
Viewing: 851 - 901
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 — Blog Index