Home > Eureka California > Hard freeze coming to the coast

Hard freeze coming to the coast

The National Weather Service predicts a hard freeze will hit the North Coast in the wee hours of Friday and Saturday.  The projected temps are 10-15 degrees below normal for this time of year, according to NWS.

Based on usual patterns in the blogosphere, the Humboldt Herald predicts Fred’s Blog will call the cold snap proof that global warming is a hoax.

  1. Xandra Mannsl
    February 23, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    Ron Dellums introduced a bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 4154, in 1992 to provide participation by the US in an emergency climate stabilization program. A conference had already been held at the United Nations’ Dag Hammerskjold Auditorium in 1988 linking deforestation and other activities of the civilized world to Global Warming and climate changes and extremes as preliminary to the Ice Age that would follow. Those of us who have been reading about these phenomena these 25 years or more have noticed warmer summers and colder winters over the past 25 years. It is not a simple trend of the earth getting warmer or colder proven by isolated incidents of hot and cold weather.

  2. February 24, 2011 at 12:37 am

    That is why most of us call it global climate change even though we know it is getting warmer.

    It just stops the dumb arguments that it’s cold outside.

  3. February 24, 2011 at 12:42 am

    I love Humboldt — I guarantee this “It’s going to be really fscking cold this weekend!” post gets at least 25 comments, with probably only 25% related to this weekend’s forecast. :)

  4. Ponder z
    February 24, 2011 at 5:50 am

    climate change is a farce. An excuse to make new taxes, to steel form me. New green jobs are subsidised by My tax dollar. They are fake jobs just like climate change is fake science. I have lived here all my life and this is nothing I have not seen before. Look up our local weather. For the last 120 years. The only man made change was in the 40s to 60s with the heavy teepee burners going all winter, cause; heavy wet fog with smoke. Wet winters, very local.

    Fools!

  5. Decline to State
    February 24, 2011 at 6:49 am

    Friday morning 6:30. Fie on your 15 degrees, it’s 40 degrees at my house in Eureka.

    So there’s your proof, we are experiencing global warming.

  6. Plain Jane
    February 24, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Poor Decline lost a day somewhere. It’s Thursday at my house.

  7. February 24, 2011 at 7:06 am

    It also disproves global warming because if it’s cold here, the rest of the planet must be cold too.

    (Nothing personal to Fred, I just have to deal with these arguments all the time.)

  8. Decline to State
    February 24, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Er, I mean Thursday. I’m recently retired and am having a hard time keeping up with what day it is. I’ll report back tomorrow (if that’s really Friday).

  9. February 24, 2011 at 8:01 am

    I covered my tender plants with remay fabric to protect them from the cold and the robins that want to eat the plants. Stay warm!

  10. A-Nony-Mouse
    February 24, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Haven’t seen snow on the ground in Eureka since 1990. It would be a treat. Now if all the ‘regular’ drivers would just stay home…….

  11. February 24, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Ponder Z must have drifted in from Fred’s blog.

  12. an F for Z
    February 24, 2011 at 9:57 am

    Ponder Z: high school education. Never excelled in science, math or critical thinking. Feels he is qualified to get into a conversation in a foreign language he does not speak. Hell, Rush and all those bozos he looks up to a Fox do it. Z is a DITTO parrot!

    Point taken Z – you are proud of your ignorance.

  13. Anonymous
    February 24, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Ponder Z is a frequent voice on the Times-Standard’s new-and-improved Facebook forums. I’m astounded that his parents named him Ponder Z, but we know everyone with a Facebook account uses his real name.

  14. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 10:02 am

    This topic came up on SoHum Parlance last week. Here’s my take:

    Lots of people seem to be confused about the difference between short-term weather trends, and long-term climate trends. Sadly, many people on both sides of the Global Warming “debate” seem to share this confusion.

    Those who side with the vast majority of climate scientists, who say that the climate is warming overall, and that human activities (particularly greenhouse gases) are an important factor in the overall warming trend will sometimes point to a particular heat wave or record temperature as “evidence” of man-made global warming.

    Meanwhile, those who side with the climate change deniers (those that claim that either the climate isn’t warming overall, or at least that any warming is not due to human activities) love to point to some particular cold snap or blizzard as “evidence” that global warming is some king of hoax.

    Trying to draw that kind of conclusion about overall climate trends from a few individual incidents of hot or cold weather is just as silly and misinformed whichever side it’s coming from.

    “Weather” is the day-to-day, week-to-week fluctuations in temperature and other atmospheric conditions. “Climate” is the overall average of these atmospheric conditions for a given region, measured over a time-scale of decades, centuries or millenia. “Global Climate,”of course, is those long-term averages measured on a world-wide basis.

    As far as the actual climate data goes, there appears to be little doubt that we are, in fact, in the midst of a significant global warming trend. How much of that is due to human activity is a bit harder to nail down, but the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are telling us that it does seem to be an important factor. And of course, it’s the factor that we could actually choose to have some control over.

  15. Anonymous
    February 24, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Global Warming “debate”

    I call shenanigans on that word. There is no debate among educated people. Those who deny climate change are deep fringe. The scientists who deny climate change are most frequently dentists and other non-scientists with no expertise in any related field, or hold religious views that their god would never allow this to happen, or believe it violates their understanding of ‘end times,’ and so climate change must not be true. Fringe like a deep shag rug.

  16. Anonymous
    February 24, 2011 at 10:34 am

    You forgot two groups… 1) transnational corporations involved in greenhouse gas production who benefit from maintaining the status quo. 2) Fox News viewers.

  17. February 24, 2011 at 10:41 am

    This February cold is actually fairly normal, from what I remember. Seems to me we usually get most of our snow and colder weather in February. I was hoping with those few warm days in January maybe it would be sign of a warmer spring. Doesn’t look like it.

    Maybe 15 years I brought it up to TV weather dude, Jim Bernard. We had a bunch of cold weather and snow in November. That doesn’t really happen that often, imo, although it does happen.

    I called up the TV station after he’d just done the weather and he actually answered the phone. I asked him if the temperatures seemed a bit colder than normal for November. He replied he didn’t think it was anything about Global Warming (they hadn’t switched to Climate Change at that point), which I hadn’t even mentioned.

    I told him I wasn’t referring to that and it was just that usually we get most of the cold and snow around February, not November. He said he’d check into it.

    The next night during the weather he mentioned a viewer calling in and wondering about the cold and snow and that, yes, we were having about 10% lower temperatures than average.

  18. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 10:44 am

    10:09,

    Note my use of quotation marks around the word “debate.”

  19. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Not meaning to be rude, Fred, but what’s your point?

  20. February 24, 2011 at 10:45 am

    There is no debate among educated people.

    There is no debate among Believers who spend so much of their time time engaging in Groupthink.

    I might add, as I’ve mentioned a number of times on my blog, we might well end up with global warming or global cooling. The point that often gets lost in the polarization of the issue is whether man is contributing to it and how much.

    There’s no doubt in my mind, assuming man is capable of any effect at all on climate, that any affect would be insignificant. There are tens of thousands of scientists across the globe that agree with me, at least to some extent.

  21. February 24, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Not meaning to be rude, Fred, but what’s your point?

    Simply in response to Heraldo saying I’d use this as an example the planet isn’t getting warmer. This isn’t unusual weather for here so how could you say one thing or the other about it in regards climate change?

  22. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 10:49 am

    There’s no doubt in my mind…there are tens of thousands of scientists across the globe that agree with me…

    And right there you’ve exhibited the exact sort of closed-minded Groupthink that you’re complaining about on the other side. Can you see that?

  23. Anonymous
    February 24, 2011 at 10:54 am

    There are tens of thousands of scientists across the globe that agree with me, at least to some extent.

    Fred, source please, so that we may swiftly debunk your evidence.

  24. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 10:55 am

    …assuming man is capable of any effect at all on climate, that any affect would be insignificant.

    Really? You don’t think that massive deforestation, burning of the rainforests, large-scale agriculture, urbanization, zillions of acres of pavement, AND the emission of greenhouse gases can’t possibly have a significant effect on climate? Seems to me that it would be pretty surprising if all our modifications of the landscape and the atmosphere had no real effect. I guess that in theory all the different manmade factors contributing to warming and cooling effects might cancel each other out almost completely, but that would be one hell of a coincidence.

  25. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Simply in response to Heraldo saying I’d use this as an example the planet isn’t getting warmer. This isn’t unusual weather for here so how could you say one thing or the other about it in regards climate change?

    O.K., at least now I see what you were driving at.

    But it’s kind of a moot point, because as I mentioned at 10:02, even if this was highly unusual weather for our area, that would not be evidence about global warming / climate change, one way or the other.

    Again: Individual short-term weather events cannot logically be used as evidence of long-term climate trends. Which was the point Heraldo was making in the first place.

  26. High Finance
    February 24, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Our government is all powerful.

    Why doesn’t Obama just pass a decree outlawing the freeze we are going to have Friday and Saturday ????

  27. skippy
    February 24, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Tra, excellent post at 10:02. One of the more clear and concise explanations I’ve read.

  28. February 24, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Fred, source please, so that we may swiftly debunk your evidence.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    BTW; That guy that heads the IPCC(?) isn’t a climate scientist, either. He’s the one who had to backtrack on that Himalayan glacier melting thing.

  29. February 24, 2011 at 11:43 am

    You don’t think that massive deforestation, burning of the rainforests, large-scale agriculture, urbanization, zillions of acres of pavement, AND the emission of greenhouse gases can’t possibly have a significant effect on climate.

    I suppose if you cut down every tree and killed every plant on the planet, sure, but that’s near impossible as nature tends to be pretty resilient. Mt. St. Helens, for instance, blew probably blew down millions of trees when she blew, yet the area regrew itself on its own. And Mt. St. Helens, btw, put more CO2 in the air than we could have if we’d tried.

    Well, maybe we might have increased CO2 if we wanted to. Any good greenhouse catalog will offer CO2 generators to boost plant growth. I suppose if we made millions of those maybe we could equal a volcano.

  30. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 11:44 am

    That “petition,” mostly signed by people who have not studied the actual climate data, and have no training in climate science (having a BS in computer science counts as a “scientist” for the propaganda purposes of the denialists) was discussed in this thread at SoHum Parlance.

    http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/you-dont-need-it-anymore/#comments

  31. Plain Jane
    February 24, 2011 at 11:50 am

    Fred that petition has been debunked so many times on this and Sohum blog, it’s impossible that you haven’t read them. Presenting that as any sort of evidence against anthropomorphic climate change is absurd since it doesn’t even state that it isn’t occurring. It says the signers (most of whom are not even scientists) s don’t believe it has been proven that anthropomorphic climate change will bring CATASTROPHIC damage to the US. That’s a whole lot different than saying it won’t cause damage or even won’t cause catastrophic damage to places other than the US.

  32. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 11:54 am

    I suppose if we made millions of those maybe we could equal a volcano.

    We use many billions of CO2 generators every day. They’re called internal-combustion engines, power plants, furnaces, air conditioners, etc. Seems to me that these would certainly add up to quite a few volcanos.

    And of course it’s not a question of one or the other, it’s both — the man-made CO2 is in addition to natural sources like volcanos. The difference is that we can’t do anything about volcanos, but we can, if we choose, reduce the human-caused emissions.

  33. February 24, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Man made contribution is still insignificant to what the earth often puts out itself.

  34. Plain Jane
    February 24, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    and FYI, Fred, the US alone dumps 1000 tons of Co2 into the atmosphere every 5.3 seconds. Globally its hundreds of thousands of tons.

    Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities.

  35. February 24, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Another point worth making: global warming could be all too real, but that doesn’t mean that power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats the world over won’t exploit the potential to respond in a totalitarian manner, much like Bush used a very real tragedy (9/11) to justify some very unnecessary totalitarian measures (Patriot ACT, warrantless wiretapping, torture, you know the story).

  36. Plain Jane
    February 24, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    We are at peak oil, and no fossil fuel is sustainable. We will eventually have to replace them with sustainable energy sources. Since there is no real doubt that using them is at the very least contributing to climate change, why not start the switch to sustainable energy now? If not now, when?

  37. tra
    February 24, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Man made contribution is still insignificant to what the earth often puts out itself.

    Well, that’s an opinion, but where are the fact to back it up?

    And what counts as “significant?” Isn’t it possible that even an additiona1 1 or 2% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions could end up being “significant” if that additional amount, when added to natural sources, pushes the climate system past vaious tipping points? (For example the melting of sea ice, glaciers, and the polar caps, which in turn leads to less reflectivity of incoming sunlight and more absorbtion of heat. Or the melting of the permafrost which allows tundra soils to rot, releasing large amounts of methane, which in turn contributes to further warming.)

    Another question is what counts as “man-made.” For example, if human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions cause a few extra degrees of warming than would otherwise occur due to natural factors alone, and these few extra degrees cause large areas of permafrost to melt and tundra soils to rot, releasing huge amounts of methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2), which in turn causes more warming, which in turn causes more methane release from more rotting tundra…do we call that methane release “man-made” or do we call it “natural.”

    Once you get into self-perpetuating cycles and positive feedback loops, it gets pretty hard to say that these “natural” releases of methane may not actually be “man-made” in the sense that they might not have occured (at least not at this point in time) without the human greenhouse gas contributions.

  38. Anonymous
    February 24, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Fred, here’s one of many debunkings of the Petition Project. It’s the hokey Oregon petition rewrapped. Check out the Wikipedia entry and its cited sources.

    Wow, I didn’t know Fred considers Michael J. Fox and Perry Mason to be scientists.

    Man made contribution is still insignificant to what the earth often puts out itself.

    Another unsupported claim. Source please, so we can debunk you. I can offer to so boldly debunk you because I know you have no evidence and I know your primary sources for news are deluded. Given that you’d hold up the Petition Project as an example is so very telling. It’s a joke.

  39. February 24, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    but that doesn’t mean that power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats the world over won’t exploit the potential to respond in a totalitarian manner, much like Bush used a very real tragedy (9/11) to justify some very unnecessary totalitarian measures….

    Which is what this is all about when it comes down to it and I find the parallels between global warming hysteria and the push to attack Iraq remarkable.

  40. Anonymous
    February 24, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    The difference is, there’s a mountain of evidence for climate change. Oh, that’s right, Fred doesn’t believe in complex things.

  41. RT
    February 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Keep drinking that Fox News kool aid Fred!

  42. February 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    The difference is, there’s a mountain of evidence for climate change.

    Again, I don’t think anyone is saying climate doesn’t change, it’s a question of how much man is affecting it, if at all.

    There’s also a mountain of arguments to suggest climate changes naturally (easy to do since it has changed through the millenia). At least in the prelude to Gulf War 2 opposite views were allowed to be heard, despite the hysterical reasons some were giving to attack Iraq.

    In the AGW debate, the media pretty much presents the view of the Believers as if it’s proven. Any opposing views are ignored or ridiculed. I find it quite frightening that so many people are so easily manipulated.

    I’ve heard that Al Gore has never accepted and invitation to debate the issue of man- caused climate change. If he’s right, and so smart, shouldn’t he be able to go toe to toe in debate with Non- believers?

  43. longwind
    February 24, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    Here’s how to understand what’s happening this winter, and why ‘climate change’ causes greater weather extremes.

    Weather is how Earth conveys the sun’s heat to its less sunny reaches at the poles. Weather creates fingers of equatorial heat reaching north and south, which interdigitate with polar fingers of cold reaching for the equator. Weather eventually blends the fingers together, while new ones start reaching.

    What we get from climate change driving hotter reaches is longer fingers that reach deeper into where they used to dissipate. So equatorial fingers reach farther north, and polar fingers reach farther south, before they dissipate. Both are the effect of the stronger heat engine thrusting hot fingers at the poles.

    Happy weather, people, I hope it snows too!

  44. Anonymous
    February 24, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    There’s also a mountain of arguments to suggest climate changes naturally

    There is not a mountain of evidence that the climate change we are experiencing isn’t being accelerated by man. Sorry, you are wrong. Present your sources so we can swiftly debunk them.

    In the AGW debate, the media pretty much presents the view of the Believers as if it’s proven.

    It’s a fact. Do you know what a fact is? Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. Man-made climate change is a fact. We also call all of these facts “theories,” but the term “theory” doesn’t make them any less a fact.

  45. Anon
    February 24, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    I don’t know if Fred is correct or not about this, but it is going to be very cold for the next couple of days. I would like Fred to be correct as we need a little global warming here. Could stand a couple of degrees warmer in the Summer and a little more summer here that we don’t seem to be getting.

    I brought in lots of plants inside house tonight but still have lots of plants that are not even covered because it is raining. Hope a lot of them survive as they cost me plenty of money.

  46. February 24, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    Poor Fred.

  47. Plain Jane
    February 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Probably the best simple explanation I’ve heard on climate change, Longwind.

  48. Tea Party Ted
    February 24, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    I love it when amateurs act like experts on science and regurgitate what the oil interests and Fox news say. Please leave the science to the scientists. How can anyone legitimately dispute the greenhouse effect? I suppose these are the same people who believe the earth is 5000 years old.

  49. Plain Jane
    February 24, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    It seems like climate change denial is a lot like religion. People believe what they do because the alternative is too scary to think about.

  50. Walt
    February 24, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Fox said it, I believe it, that settles it.

  51. 69er
    February 24, 2011 at 10:45 pm

    Just a little story about February weather. Let’s go back to the last century, the early 60’s. Had a date with the father-in-law to go fishing at mouth of Yager Creek on the VanDuzen River. Woke up before daylight to falling snow, picked up the old man and proceded WEST on Harris St. and slid down the hill to Broadway. Made it safely to our destination. After a few casts it became difficult to get the line out and then impossible, checked the guides and found them frozen. At that point I realized that I was cold, wading with tennis shoes, no boots or waders. Found that by dipping the rod into the water would thaw the guides, we continued fishing and caught a couple of bright fish each and decided to go home. Picked up the fish off the gravel bar and found them to be frozen solid. It can get cold here in February. Hope I didn’t bore you!!!

  52. longwind
    February 25, 2011 at 7:18 am

    Thanks, PJ.

    There’s always been way weird weather from time to time, and scary cycles of it such as the little ice age in medieval times. What global weirding fosters is more frequent extremes, as temperature fingers grow longer and narrower.

    A great recent example in the Midwest: less than a week after Chicago got two feet of snow in very cold blizzard conditions, almost all the snow had melted under lovely warm sun. Now it’s snowing there again.
    Global warming? Climate change? Global weirding.

  53. Goldie
    February 25, 2011 at 7:29 am

    I enjoyed your February tale 69er. No snow today in Eureka.

  54. Right Said Fred
    February 25, 2011 at 11:30 am

    In other news, a GOP inquiry finds no evidence that ‘climategate’ scientists misused data.

    This was the non-scandal made into a scandal by rightwing media, preying on peoples’ lack of understanding in how scientists use terminology.

    I recall poor Fred being duped by this big lie as well.

  55. High Finance
    February 25, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Put another log on the fire and pray for global warming.

  56. longwind
    February 25, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Moderate those prayers, HiFi. It was global warming (or do you call it climate change?) that created the unprecedented June thunderstorm with several thousand lightning strikes that set the North Coast ablaze and just about burnt Mendocino County out of control two years ago. Extreme events, remember? Half-mile wide tornadoes were virtually unheard of decades back. Now they barely make the Weather Channel.

    We can and should deny ideology, but not reality.

  57. Anonymous
    February 25, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    That fits the broad effects of climate change expected in the west… increased forest fires from dryer summers. Coastal flooding is another.

  58. High Finance
    February 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Gee sorry Longwind, I did not realize that was the first thunderstorm in Mendocino County !

    And if you would google big tornadoes you would find that half mile tornadoes were definitely heard of before.

  59. longwind
    February 25, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    HiFi, if you can’t tell the difference between June and November, I guess I can’t help you. You could help me by showing me a half-mile wide tornado track from earlier than 30 years ago. Thanks.

  60. Tar
    February 25, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    “Top ten US killer tornadoes”

    #1 3-18-1925
    #2 5-7-1840
    #3 5-27-1896
    #4 4-5-1936
    #5 4-6-1936
    #6 4-9-1947
    #7 4-24-1908
    #8 6-12-1899
    #9 6-8-1953
    #10 5-11-1953

    http://www.tornadoproject.com/toptens/topten3.htm

  61. Plain Jane
    February 25, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Tornadoes are less deadly today because of early warning systems and public education.

  62. skippy
    February 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Don’t know much about this issue as related here, but it would seem to follow. Just reporting the news.

    As reported in Tom Sebourn’s and the Highboldtage websites:

    COLD WEATHER ALERT

    Survival Temperatures Hit Record Low Maximums in Arcata, McKinleyville and Crescent City: Cold Weather Emergency in Eureka, Arcata & Humboldt County.

    The forecast for the next two days is for rain, hail, snow and sub freezing temperatures down to 23 degrees in Eureka and colder in the mountains.

    Please if you are a church or a civic organization in Eureka and Humboldt that can take in a homeless person or family, please send a note to the e-mail below. Our governments seem to be unable to provide this simple humanitarian assistance to our homeless brothers and sisters so churches must step forward. This is the kind of weather that kills people.

    have a peaceful day, Bill

    …Send me an email: humboldt.organizer@gmail.com.

  63. Anonymous
    February 26, 2011 at 8:50 am

    The problem is religious fanatics are pushing to force schools to “teach the controversy” where no scientific controversy exists.

    In Tennessee, they’re about to force science teachers to teach non-science curriculum (religious views) on the topics of biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

  64. February 26, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Tennessee has a distinguished history of conflating history and science, so it’s no surprise that they’d provide leadership in climate change denial. Fred is a Libertarian, and that’s another screwball belief that denies climate science.

    I prefer the consensus of peer reviewed science to the insistent rationalizations of ideologues on blogs.

  65. tra
    February 26, 2011 at 10:37 am

    To be fair, there’s nothing about libertarianism that necessitates climate change denialism. However, since the proposed solutions to the greenhouse gas emissions problem tend to be collectivist in nature, and in most cases government-organized responses which are anathema to purist libertarians, many of these folks are in a position where human-caused- climate-change denialism is a more convenient belief than believing the scientific consensus is accurate, which would necessitate that the libertarians either design viable voluntary/individualistic responses to the greenhouse gas problem (which may be impossible given the collective and borderless nature of the problem), or else admit that collectivist and government-organized approaches will be necessary in this case.

  66. February 26, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Uh, ok. I feel so much better about Libertarians now.

  67. skippy
    February 26, 2011 at 11:16 am

    “Eureka may experience the coldest morning since 1899 today, if the temperature goes below 24 degrees.”

    Donna Tam’s Time-Standard article today, “Temperatures May Meet Historic Low,”
    is here for readers.

    Stay warm and dry, folks.
    peace… skips

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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