Page 16 of 48 < 1 2 ... 14 15 16 17 18 ... 47 48 >
Topic Options
#1096646 - 29/03/2012 20:40 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: SGB]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
NSIDC
n average, Arctic sea ice has historically peaked around March 6, but the maximum extent has tended to occur later in the month in recent years. The cause for the later peak is unknown, but NSIDC’s Walt Meier suspects it might be related to the minimum .

Ok the cause for the later peak is unknown .
Had it been vice versa we would be lextured its due to global warming . Give me a break Walt .

Top
#1096979 - 31/03/2012 15:25 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: SGB]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2639
Originally Posted By: SGB
Originally Posted By: CeeBee

Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the winter of 2011–2012 on March 18, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has announced.

With a total extent of 15.24 million square kilometers (5.88 million square miles), sea ice was below the 1979–2000 average, but slightly above the record low, which was recorded during the winter of 2010–2011.

On average, Arctic sea ice has historically peaked around March 6, but the maximum extent has tended to occur later in the month in recent years. The cause for the later peak is unknown, but NSIDC’s Walt Meier suspects it might be related to the minimum sea ice extents that occur each September.

“There are constraints on how long Arctic sea ice can keep growing in late March,” Meier says, citing springtime sunlight and rising temperatures. “But since Arctic sea ice has melted so much in the summers, it could be that the ice has more room to grow at the end of the season.” Over the last decade, Arctic sea ice extents in September have set record lows three times, and the 2011 minimum nearly tied the 2007 record low.

Meier points out something else about Arctic sea ice extent. “The nine lowest maximum extents have occurred in the last nine years, since 2004,” he says.

Although Arctic sea ice has continued to grow later in the season, the ice has been thin—only about 10 to 30 centimeters (4 to 12 inches) thick at most, Meier explains. “So it will all melt away very quickly. I don’t expect the late-season growth spurt to have a big effect on sea ice extent next summer.”

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77513



CeeBee, nice detailed report on Arctic ice...

Just a suggestion, but if you could put as much effort into research into Antarctic Sea ice extent as well, I'd be very interested in the results. (And I'm sure others would be too).

Questions I'd like answered include:

- Is Antarctic ice extent predominately above or below the 1979-2000 average?
- Since 2004, how many years have the highest maximums or highest minimums occured?
- Is Antarctic ice getting thicker?

Unless of course you're biased towards just one of our poles?

Disclaimer: Yes this is the Arctic Sea Ice thread but they are clearly related. I believe we can comment on the North Pole and the South Pole, just as clearly as we can comment on El Niño and La Niña in the ENSO thread.


Antarctic - Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 42,000 mi2) per decade

Arctic - Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade

When taken in total the ice is clearly decreasing. The decrease in the Arctic overwhelms the small (not statistically significant) increasing trend in the Antarctic.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
_________________________

Top
#1097034 - 31/03/2012 19:40 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: CeeBee]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4478
Loc: Brisbane
Interesting whats the deficit currently Ceebee? (combined global extent against the 1979-2000 average)
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1097045 - 31/03/2012 20:40 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: CeeBee]
SGB Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 04/04/2010
Posts: 221
Loc: Canberra
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: SGB
Originally Posted By: CeeBee

Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the winter of 2011–2012 on March 18, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has announced.

With a total extent of 15.24 million square kilometers (5.88 million square miles), sea ice was below the 1979–2000 average, but slightly above the record low, which was recorded during the winter of 2010–2011.

On average, Arctic sea ice has historically peaked around March 6, but the maximum extent has tended to occur later in the month in recent years. The cause for the later peak is unknown, but NSIDC’s Walt Meier suspects it might be related to the minimum sea ice extents that occur each September.

“There are constraints on how long Arctic sea ice can keep growing in late March,” Meier says, citing springtime sunlight and rising temperatures. “But since Arctic sea ice has melted so much in the summers, it could be that the ice has more room to grow at the end of the season.” Over the last decade, Arctic sea ice extents in September have set record lows three times, and the 2011 minimum nearly tied the 2007 record low.

Meier points out something else about Arctic sea ice extent. “The nine lowest maximum extents have occurred in the last nine years, since 2004,” he says.

Although Arctic sea ice has continued to grow later in the season, the ice has been thin—only about 10 to 30 centimeters (4 to 12 inches) thick at most, Meier explains. “So it will all melt away very quickly. I don’t expect the late-season growth spurt to have a big effect on sea ice extent next summer.”

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77513



CeeBee, nice detailed report on Arctic ice...

Just a suggestion, but if you could put as much effort into research into Antarctic Sea ice extent as well, I'd be very interested in the results. (And I'm sure others would be too).

Questions I'd like answered include:

- Is Antarctic ice extent predominately above or below the 1979-2000 average?
- Since 2004, how many years have the highest maximums or highest minimums occured?
- Is Antarctic ice getting thicker?

Unless of course you're biased towards just one of our poles?

Disclaimer: Yes this is the Arctic Sea Ice thread but they are clearly related. I believe we can comment on the North Pole and the South Pole, just as clearly as we can comment on El Niño and La Niña in the ENSO thread.


Antarctic - Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 42,000 mi2) per decade

Arctic - Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade

When taken in total the ice is clearly decreasing. The decrease in the Arctic overwhelms the small (not statistically significant) increasing trend in the Antarctic.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html


A very politician like response from yourself there CB... The question remains, why is it increasing when we're supposed to warming? Why is thickness increasing?

As far as the Arctic is concerned, I believe ROM posted this earlier which you may have conveniently ignored:

From Dr Roy Spencer:

Quote:

Could Arctic Sea Ice Decline be Caused by the Arctic Oscillation?
March 22nd, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
While the IPCC claims that recent Arctic sea ice declines are the result of human-caused warming, there is also convincing observational evidence that natural cycles in atmospheric circulation patterns might also be involved.

And unless we know how much of the decline is natural, I maintain we cannot know how much is human-caused.

In 2002, a paper was published in the Journal of Climate entitled Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, where the authors (one of whom, Mike Wallace, was a co-discoverer of the AO) shows that changing wind patterns associated with the AO contributed to Arctic sea ice declines from one decade to the next: from 1979-1988 to 1989-1998.

The Arctic Oscillation involves sea level pressure patterns over the Arctic Ocean, North Atlantic, and North Pacific. Since sea ice moves around with the wind (see this movie example), sea level pressure patterns can either expose or cover various sections of the Arctic Ocean.

When there are many winters in a row with high (or low) pressure, it can affect sea ice cover on decadal time scales. Over time, ice can become more extensive and thicker, or less extensive and thinner.

There is a time lag involved in all of this, as discussed in the above paper. So, to examine the potential cumulative effect of the AO, I made the following plot of cumulative values of the winter (December-January-February) AO (actually, their departures from the long-term average) since 1900. I’ve attached a spreadsheet with the data for those interested, updated through this past winter.

Consistent with the analysis in the above-cited paper, the sea ice decline since satellite monitoring began in 1979 was during a period of persistent positive values of the AO index (note the reversed vertical scale). Since the satellite period started toward the end of a prolonged period of negative AO values, this raises the question of whether we just happened to start monitoring Arctic sea ice when it was near peak coverage.

Note that back in the 1920’s, when there were reports of declining sea ice, record warmth, and disappearing glaciers, there was similar AO behavior to the last couple of decades. Obviously, that was before humans could have influenced the climate system in any substantial way.

I won’t go into what might be causing the cyclic pattern in the AO over several decades. My only point is that there is published evidence to support the view that some (or even most?) of the ~20 year sea ice decline up until the 2007 minimum was part of a natural cycle, related to multi-decadal changes in average wind patterns.
_________________________
Chinese proverb: “Only he who has travelled the road knows where the holes are deep”

Top
#1097273 - 01/04/2012 21:02 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: SGB]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2639
I did read Spencer's puff piece. I don't agree with his analyses. These pics show why the ice is melting.







arctic-temperatures-continue-rapid-rise-2011-breaks-record
_________________________

Top
#1097358 - 02/04/2012 07:40 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: CeeBee]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4478
Loc: Brisbane
ROFL. Your quoting GISS temperature data for the Arctic to prove your point Ceebee?

Oh. And what was the current deficit for global sea ice extent (against the 1979-2000 average)? Here I'll help you out. It currently stands at +264,000km2. Oops thats not a deficit at all is it Ceebee.

In fact, despite all those "record breaking" temps the Arctic sea ice extent is only 142,000km2 below the average. Maybe because temp is simply one part of an incredibly complicated picture when it comes to determine what is going on in the Arctic.

NVM Ceebee, one more year and all the ice will be gone eh?

The most ironic thing is in the comments for that article you've linked Ceebee.

Ross states:

"I work on the North Slope Kuparuk oil field and we are experiencing minus temperatures that haven’t been seen here in 25 years."

which is jumped upon by a Romm acolyte named Bill who says:

"Ross … you’re making a common mistake here of making a global attribution for weather in a relatively small area."

Given the way in which GISS derives their Arctic temps I find the response hilarious.


Edited by Locke (02/04/2012 07:48)
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1097376 - 02/04/2012 09:15 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: Locke]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Only a couple of weeks ago CeeBee very self righteously condemned some supposed cherry picking by a skeptical site until it was pointed out that cherry picking was rife amongst the warmista sites.
So we now have here just another example of blatant cherry picking in the supposed Joe Romm selected / GISS global temperature anomalies map.

The base line in the global anomalies map against which the anomalies are measured, that CeeBee has chosen to post runs the standard baseline period of 30 years from 1951 to 1980.

As you can see from the following CRU temperature graph which despite a great deal of manipulation and the ongoing "massaging' of the temperature data [ even temperature data of 30 years ago is still being changed, always to cool the past temperatures to make the present appear warmer. GISS is by far the worst in this but CRU are not far behind ] the global temperatures during this 30 year period were amongst the lowest temperatures in the previous 3/4's of a century so any current temps calibrated against the 1951 to 1980 base line will appear very warm.

The anomalies base line that has been accepted by all climate organisations and is in common usage for quite a few years now is from the warmer period 1961 to 1990.

And has been so often stated here and even in official releases from UKMet , there are almost no stations in the Arctic above 85 degrees so Hansen's NASA GISS in particular is notorious for using 1200 kms grids and undocumented infilling to give the illusion that the Arctic is rapidly warming and therefore when averaging out over the globe, global warming is significant.
which can be seen in CeeBee's GISS map above.



Note that from the beginning years of the global temperature graph above in 1850 to 2010/11, a period of 160 years the rise in global temperatures is about .8 C.
Or about .6C a century which is the accepted rise in temperature as the Earth's climate emerged out of the 400 year long "Little Ice Age" period.
And note also the blatant manner in which the vertical LH anomalies axis is extended to give an apparent very steep and illusory increase in the temperature anomalies, a very common technique of the warmists.

And CRU's global temperature anomalies for Feb 2012.
Note here the white grid squares where data is not available compared to CB's almost completely covered GISS map with very few data gaps.
CRU and GISS both use the same data base for the GHCN network and the NCDC data bases.



http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

Top
#1097382 - 02/04/2012 09:31 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: ROM]
Crooksey Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 09/08/2008
Posts: 64
Loc: Gundagai, South West Slopes, N...
Only read through the last few pages of posts. The dates of reference on ice area size are based on 1980 through to 2011...........

We are currently in similar weather patterns as 1974...............wouldn't it be prudent to compare whats happening with the ice now and the next few years to 1974 - 1976 and then make a judgement on the differences??

How can we compare now to say the 1980's or 1990's when they were not extreme La Nina events?

Top
#1097387 - 02/04/2012 09:52 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: Crooksey]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
There appears to be a cyclic pattern in the Arctic sea ice cover which may be connected to the Arctic Oscillation which doesn't apparently have any strict periodicy.
The 1920s were a period of very low Arctic ice cover, perhaps lower than today's ice coverage and that from the newspapers of the time which have been referred to here in a number of posts.

Roy Spencer has a post on the Arctic Ice cover and it's apparent link to the Arctic oscillation

Could Arctic Sea Ice Decline be Caused by the Arctic Oscillation?

And the Wiki's Arctic Oscillation

Any analysis of Arctic Ice cover should probably extend out to a couple of centuries at least to get some real idea on the long term trends in global ice cover.

The total stupidity that prevails through so much climate related research where some very short period change in the climate or some other of nature's creations is immediately proclaimed as a new disaster in the making is just pure ignorance or deliberate fraud by those making those alarmist statements.
We have to look at many decades or centuries or millennium to try and find the real long term underlying patterns and cycles that drive this Earth's climate and natural phenomena, not the eye blink of a decade orso which is just a waxk for those making those types of predictions.

Top
#1097412 - 02/04/2012 12:11 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2639
ROM, CRU uses HadCRUT3 to compile their global temperature anomalies charts.

NASA GISS assumes that temperature anomalies remain coherent out to distances of 1200km from a station. In this way they can estimate temperatures through much of the Arctic and Antarctic using only a small number of well separated stations. Because the Arctic has warmed faster than the rest of the planet, the NASA GISS analysis runs a little warmer than HadCRUT3 in recent years.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/
_________________________

Top
#1097417 - 02/04/2012 12:41 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: CeeBee]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2639
From page 14 of Hansen et al. 2010

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf

The question is then, how valid are the extrapolations and interpolations in the GISS analysis? The GISS analysis assigns a temperature anomaly to many grid boxes that do not contain measurement data, specifically all grid boxes located within 1200 km of one or more stations that do have defined temperature anomalies. The rationale for this aspect of the GISS analysis is based on the fact that temperature anomaly patterns tend to be large scale, especially at middle and high latitudes.

The HadCRUT analysis also makes an (implicit) assumption about temperature anomalies in regions remote from meteorological stations, if the HadCRUT result is taken as a global analysis. The HadCRUT approach area weights temperature anomalies of the regions in each hemisphere that have observations; then the means in each hemisphere are weighted equally to define the global result [Brohan et al., 2006]. Thus, HadCRUT implicitly assumes that areas without observations have a temperature anomaly equal to the hemispheric mean anomaly. Given the pattern of large temperature anomalies in the fringe Arctic areas with data , this implicit estimate surely understates the effect of Arctic temperature anomalies.

Qualitative support for the greater Arctic anomaly of the GISS analysis is provided by Arctic temperature anomaly patterns in the GISS analysis: regions warmer or cooler than average when the mean anomaly is adjusted to zero are realistic looking meteorological patterns. More quantitative support is provided by satellite observations of infrared radiation from the Arctic [Comiso, 2006, 2010]. Although we have not yet attempted to integrate this infrared data record, which begins in 1981, into our temperature record, the temperature anomaly maps of Comiso [2006, 2010] have the largest positive temperature anomalies (several degrees Celsius) during the first decade of this century over the interior of Greenland and over the Arctic Ocean in regions where sea ice cover has decreased. Because there are no weather stations in central Greenland with long records or within the sea ice region, our analysis may understate warming in these regions. An exception is the station on Sakhalin Island, which is located in a region of decreasing sea ice cover and which does show relatively large warming in the past decade.
_________________________

Top
#1097418 - 02/04/2012 12:49 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: CeeBee]
Mike Hauber Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3301
Loc: Buderim
quoting the 1922 weather review as evidence that sea ice in the Arctic today is nothing unusual. (link) From this:

'In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 deg 29 in ice-free water.'

At the moment we are near the maximum yearly sea ice extent. And I make out the current boundary of the sea ice as pretty close to 81 deg north. During some of the recent maximums it has been much closer to the 85 deg line than 80, and would certainly have passed 83, and maybe got close to 84.

But this was not the only report of the position of the sea ice edge. There were quite a few reports of where the sea ice edge was onver the last century. And if you put all these reports together and use them to estimate the ice extent you get a graph that looks like this:



Edited by teckert (02/04/2012 17:12)

Top
#1097421 - 02/04/2012 13:02 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
"NASA GISS assumes that temperature anomalies remain coherent out to distances of 1200km from a station. In this way they can estimate temperatures through much of the Arctic and Antarctic using only a small number of well separated stations" CB quote

In other words, it is a very very very rough estimate!!!

Top
#1097423 - 02/04/2012 13:09 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
By the way, if you are stll around MH, your graph does not seem to state where the data even came from on cryosphere, the main chart starts at 1979 when staellite data commenced. Where your the earlier ice data came from who knows?

Top
#1097459 - 02/04/2012 16:25 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4478
Loc: Brisbane
The problem with ice measurements before the satellite era is they are based largely on ship measurements on the edge of the ice pack and cannot accurately measures areas of open water inside the ice pack which the satellite measurements do.

I'd take any measurements from before the satellite era with a grain of salt. Therefore the only context we have for trends in Arctic Ice cover a period of just over 30 years. Clearly not an adequate period to measure trends in climate which have historically spanned centuries.
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1097460 - 02/04/2012 16:25 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: bd bucketingdown]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Times, they'are a changing!

From the BBC .

BBC: Recovery In Arctic Sea Ice Continues

Quote:
Arctic sea ice has staged a strong recovery in the last few weeks, reaching levels not far from normal for this time of the year. Interestingly Antarctica sea ice extent is currently slightly above average, as it has been for some time.

The rise is all the more impressive, since February saw the 5th lowest ice extent since satellite records began in 1979, and until recently ice extent has been hovering close to record low levels.

Interestingly Antarctica sea ice extent is currently slightly above average, as it has been for some time.

Levels of Arctic sea ice are not just dependent on temperature levels, but local weather conditions play a huge part too.

The much publicised 2007 minimum Arctic ice level was in large part due to the prevailing wind, which blew more ice into the Atlantic - as opposed to anything directly linked to global temperatures, as widely reported in the media at the time.

In fact The Met Office issued a press release to that end, saying the loss of sea ice that year had been wrongly attributed to global warming.

Arctic weather systems are highly variable and prevailing winds can enhance, or oppose, the flow of ice into the Atlantic. Indeed the increase in ice extent this month has coincided with a change in wind direction which seems to have spread out ice cover.

It's too early to say whether this recovery will translate into higher levels of spring and summer Arctic ice compared with recent years, but scientists will be watching data closely in the coming days and weeks.

BBC Weather, 21 March 2012


Edited by teckert (02/04/2012 17:14)

Top
#1097466 - 02/04/2012 16:56 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: bd bucketingdown]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14224
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Meanwhile, Artic Sea Ice has once again failed to drown any polar bears for the warmmers. pity about that. Al Gore must be be beside himself, here he has a massive publicty campaign ready to roll out and the bloody ice didn't melt, again. Oh well back to the drawing board. Might be time for An Incontinent Truth V2.0.
_________________________
Oct 27mm
2018 Total 770mm






Top
#1097467 - 02/04/2012 16:57 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
And it goes on
Britain Has Finally Rejected The Bogus Economics Of Climate Change

And here's why
Quote:
The government, although not yet ready to say so, has finally rejected the bogus economics of climate change or, more likely, it always knew the figures didn’t add up but is now desperate for the internationally competitive cheap energy needed to keep our industrial base from wholesale emigration.


Canada
Canadian budget hits basic science

And "Nature's" idea of the basic research which is supposedly losing out.

Quote:
The budget also eliminates a federal advisory panel on the environment. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, an independent agency established in the 1990s, studied questions of climate, water, energy, biodiversity and governance, and offered advice to the Canadian prime minister. But its reports frequently challenged the government’s views, says Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. Combined with the announced cuts at Environment Canada, it is clear that “the environment is a huge loser in this budget,” he says.


And it seems that formerly American industries that migrated to of shore locations are returning to America where the very cheap shale gas, the price of which has fallen by some 4 or 5 times over the last year due to the enormous amounts being found right across the USA is making energy very cheap and very reliable in supply terms for major manufacturing industries.

There's a very big lesson in there for Gillard but it will be ignored because it is contrary to Gillard's and the greens ideological position.

Top
#1097469 - 02/04/2012 17:25 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Apologies; that last post above was supposed to be in the AGW news thread.

Top
#1097750 - 04/04/2012 14:01 Re: Arctic Sea Ice [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2639


Here's a great link for all you graph junkies... https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm
_________________________

Top
Page 16 of 48 < 1 2 ... 14 15 16 17 18 ... 47 48 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
9 registered (TWEEDSTORM, scott12, Steve O, Mike Hauber, GringosRain, ashestoashes, DNO, 2 invisible), 91 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
MatthewBr, Raweth, Russellmill
Forum Stats
29681 Members
32 Forums
23978 Topics
1500482 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image