Mars orbiters reveal seasonal dust storm pattern

NASA Mars orbiters reveal seasonal dust storm pattern
This graphic presents Martian atmospheric temperature data as curtains over an image of Mars taken during a regional dust storm. The temperature profiles extend from the surface to about 50 miles up. Temperatures are color coded, from minus 243 degrees Fahrenheit (purple) to minus 9 F (red). Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

After decades of research to discern seasonal patterns in Martian dust storms from images showing the dust, but the clearest pattern appears to be captured by measuring the temperature of the Red Planet's atmosphere.

For six recent Martian years, temperature records from NASA Mars orbiters reveal a pattern of three types of large regional dust storms occurring in sequence at about the same times each year during the spring and summer. Each Martian year lasts about two Earth years.

"When we look at the temperature structure instead of the visible dust, we finally see some regularity in the large dust storms," said David Kass of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. He is the instrument scientist for the Mars Climate Sounder on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and lead author of a report about these findings posted this week by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"Recognizing a pattern in the occurrence of regional dust storms is a step toward understanding the fundamental atmospheric properties controlling them," he said. "We still have much to learn, but this gives us a valuable opening."

Dust lofted by Martian winds links directly to atmospheric temperature: The dust absorbs sunlight, so the sun heats dusty air more than clear air. In some cases, this can be dramatic, with a difference of more than 63 Fahrenheit degrees (35 Celsius degrees) between dusty air and clear air. This heating also affects the global wind distribution, which can produce downward motion that warms the air outside the dust-heated regions. Thus, temperature observations capture both direct and indirect effects of the dust storms on the atmosphere.

Improving the ability to predict large-scale, potentially hazardous dust storms on Mars would have safety benefits for planning robotic and human missions to the planet's surface. Also, by recognizing patterns and categories of dust storms, researchers make progress toward understanding how seasonal local events affect global weather in a typical Mars year.

NASA has been operating orbiters at Mars continuously since 1997. The Mars Climate Sounder on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which reached Mars in 2006, and the Thermal Emission Spectrometer on Mars Global Surveyor, which studied Mars from 1997 to 2006, have used infrared observations to assess atmospheric temperature. Kass and co-authors analyzed temperature data representative of a broad layer centered about 16 miles (25 kilometers) above the Martian surface. That's high enough to be more affected by regional storms than by local storms.

Most Martian dust storms are localized, smaller than about 1,200 miles (about 2,000 kilometers) across and dissipating within a few days. Some become regional, affecting up to a third of the planet and persisting up to three weeks. A few encircle Mars, covering the southern hemisphere but not the whole planet. Twice since 1997, global dust storms have fully enshrouded Mars. The behavior of large regional dust storms in Martian years that include global dust storms is currently unclear, and years with a global storm were not included in the new analysis.

Three large regional storms, dubbed types A, B and C, all appeared in each of the six Martian years investigated.

Multiple small storms form sequentially near Mars' north pole in the northern autumn, similar to Earth's cold-season arctic storms that swing one after another across North America.

"On Mars, some of these break off and head farther south along favored tracks," Kass said. "If they cross into the southern hemisphere, where it is mid-spring, they get warmer and can explode into the much larger Type A dust storms."

Southern hemisphere spring and summer on modern-day Mars are much warmer than northern spring and summer, because the eccentricity of Mars' orbit puts the planet closest to the sun near the end of southern spring. Southern spring and summer have long been recognized as the dustiest part of the Martian year and the season of global , even though the more detailed pattern documented in the new report had not been previously described.

When a Type A storm from the north moves into southern-hemisphere spring, the sunlight on the dust warms the atmosphere. That energy boosts the speed of winds. The stronger winds lift more dust, further expanding the area and vertical reach of the storm.

In contrast, the Type B storm starts close to the south pole shortly before the beginning of southern summer. Its origin may be from winds generated at the edge of the retreating south-polar carbon dioxide ice cap. Multiple storms may contribute to a regional haze.

The Type C storm starts after the B storm ends. It originates in the north during northern winter (southern summer) and moves to the southern hemisphere like the Type A storm. From one year to another, the C storm varies more in strength, in terms of peak temperature and duration, than the A and B storms do.


Explore further

Dust storms on Mars

More information: D. M. Kass et al. Interannual similarity in the Martian atmosphere during the dust storm season, Geophysical Research Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1002/2016GL068978
Journal information: Geophysical Research Letters

Citation: Mars orbiters reveal seasonal dust storm pattern (2016, June 10) retrieved 24 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-mars-orbiters-reveal-seasonal-storm.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
37 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 10, 2016
We need to take the Dalek's approach to the EU cranks. I dearly want to meet one in a bar some day. It's incredible the number of threads on this site where interesting topics have been drug into the gutter by EU idiots. They've got their little circle jerk site that canthink loves so much; I guess they know deep down what a joke they are and come here to get validation from real scientists.

Jun 10, 2016
https://www.thund...vils.htm
WARNING TO READERS: this is a Pseudoscience phishing site

if you click the site use a proxy or use TOR as well as a firewall and great anti-virus

I've already been hit with a few issues since attempting to validate an eu claim by using their own links

.

.

I dearly want to meet one in a bar some day.
@fckthierreyhenry
cowards, dumbsh*ts, trolls and bullies don't stand their ground in person

you would be either chasing them or you would never see them

one thing the eu will not do is public appearances- i've challenged many to public debates to no end (likely because they fear retribution for promoting a blatant lie be it physical or litigious)
and come here to get validation from real scientists.
this is the reason they come to PO
they are attempting to lend credibility to a falsified religious belief

this is why PO is flooded with eu, zeph, creationists, etc

Jun 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 10, 2016
I dearly want to meet one in a bar some day.

Why? You wanna show how "smart" you are by dishing out some theoretical justice?
It's incredible the number of threads on this site where interesting topics have been drug into the gutter by EU idiots.

What's interesting is how many different subjects the EU is relevant to, it's called consilience and is the reason the EU is far and away the most consistent and accurate cosmology.

come here to get validation from real scientists.

Where are these real scientists? They don't post in these threads?

Jun 10, 2016
how many different subjects the EU is relevant to
a religion that predicts everything predicts nothing at all
Where are these real scientists?
talked about in the articles and usually in the linked peer-reviewed studies accompanying said articles
- you know... all those places where your con-men are not at
They don't post in these threads?
you are here to attempt to gain credibility by proxy: you assume, irrationally, that by posting your religious belief in a science thread it automagically is considered science because you use big words that you don't understand

then you claim "experiment" while not comprehending the data, results and physics

IOW - this is like attending a church under the assumption that it will make you holier

religion doesn't even work that way... ask any preacher if being in the church makes you holy
LMFAO


Jun 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 10, 2016
Science is not a direct means for reaching the truth blah blah blah etc
@chris/hannes/eu nutter
1- truth is a subjective word/term

2- this is called argument from authority and it makes the ASSumption that because subject A published a paper then said subject is infallible and speaks only fact

3- science is the only direct means for teaching and learning about reality, especially the reality that isn't subjective most people live in (except the eu, religious nutters, etc)

4- this same person also stated "Science is in decline" and therefore obviously hasn't been aware or awake for the past 40 years

5- said person is also a philo - in this case no different than a preacher

6- making the argument that you must be correct becuase someone else believes in your idea is no different than religion

7- and most important: you aint said author, and you sure aint a published or reputable scientist

and downrating still aint gonna make you right or "factual"
LOL

Jun 11, 2016
@CR - a lot of words from (in this case) a single author -who makes incidentally a good deal of sense, (..)

Science's failings, such as they are, are not peculiar to science; simply because it is a human endeavour, and potentially subject therefore to human failings. What does set it aside from other human undertakings however is the scientific method.(...)
- FSC

Perhaps you meant to say that, "Science's failings, although peculiar to science, as such are only due to human endeavor, and therefore potentially subject to human failings". You were referring to "the failings of SCIENCE", which therefore would BE peculiar to science.
But, the "scientific method" itself is also subject to human failings (slips and errors). Scientific Method isn't foolproof or written in stone, no matter how much we wish it to be. Mistakes happen and new ideas and methods replace the old. Otherwise, science doesn't get very far. Science evolves and is progressive if allowed to be.

Jun 11, 2016
@FSC
I should mention that the Scientific Method is open to revision as the case warrants such revisions. Eg: A person who purchases a PC with a new Windows 10 OS will have no use for a manual from Windows 95 or a Commodore 64 computer. Same with an older 'scientific method'. It wouldn't make sense to hang onto it because it is preferred over something that is new and better...all for nostalgia and a hatred or fear of change.
If EU proves to be a superior theory than the Standard Einsteinian Model, then why fight it when it will become the new Scientific Method anyway.

Jun 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 11, 2016
one thing the eu will not do is public appearances- i've challenged many to public debates to no end (likely because they fear retribution for promoting a blatant lie be it physical or litigious)
My first experience with EU was at stellafane some 25yrs ago.

A guy was a guest speaker and gave a pretty decent presentation with slides and all.

But sitting in an open-sided tent with a bunch of geeks at 2:00 in the morning can give any topic an air of mystery and wonder.

Jun 12, 2016
My first experience with EU was at stellafane some 25yrs ago
@TGO
yeah, and they have other more recent symposiums as well... problem is:
1- they don't introduce any speakers, publication or science (that directly refutes their religious beliefs)

2- they refuse to public debates which will introduce validated science (which refutes their religious beliefs)

hell, even the creationists were willing to publicly debate Bill Nye

but perhaps that is why the eu refuses to get public with scientists? (except on blogs, news aggregates or e-mail)

i guess keeping it lower-key means plausible deniability, less exposure for their stupid and it makes it easier to craft a delusional refute based upon their religion in writing
(ever see the discourse with Thompson? -wow! full of stupid!)

the eu is set up like a fanatical religious cult with a terrorist arm that has cells ... each cell has a responsibility with cd et al on to PO and don scott with e-mails etc

LMFAO

Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 12, 2016

@OS - you're confusing the scientific method (a methodology) with a bunch of half-assed "theories" with precisely zero predictive power.

The SM is a
body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge
involving typically the following points
- FSC

Your 8 points are all good ones. However, your insistence that EU scientists are not experimenting scientifically and looking for answers wrt the EU theory seems, to me, a bit of "confirmation bias" which, according to Wiki - "is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities."

You, and many others are, and have been giving LESS CONSIDERATION to alternative possibilities. This is a natural bias for the sake of the preservation of all that you have learned in the past and understand

Jun 12, 2016
(cont'd)
@FSC
But, you don't seem to realize that EU scientists are not only performing their own lab experiments, they are also observing what StandardModel scientists are observing. Unless proponents of the SM decide one day to disallow their observations and discoveries to be disseminated to EU scientists, among others, the data is available for those who wish to learn that information.
Sometimes, the data is agreeable to EU, and sometimes not so much. But science is a revisable animal upon further evidence and, as such, should be given lots of TLC and urged forward WITHOUT BIAS no matter in which direction it goes.

Jun 13, 2016
EU scientists
no such creature
You, and many others are, and have been giving LESS CONSIDERATION to alternative possibilities
If you make a claim without evidence, then the counter claim (reciprocal) without evidence holds the exact same validity. If you say something *is* without being able to prove it with evidence, than simply saying that something *is not* is equally valid and holds the same truth

one of the cornerstones of the scientific method:
the claim + physical evidence supporting claim + it must be compatible with observation and past validated knowledge

dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudice, bias or wrong, it is required by the scientific method

this also applies to claims that are based upon blatant misinterpretations of evidence as well as any claim contrary to known validated physics without further extraordinary evidence to support said extraordinary claim


Jun 13, 2016
cont'd
EU scientists are not only performing their own lab experiments
1- experiments by parties not educated in the required topics would be like asking a preacher to devise an experiment to prove evolution wrong: we see the results of that in creationism, and it fails because of basic misunderstanding of validated physics as well as attempting to validate a faith with science
it will always fail die to those reasons
they are also observing what StandardModel scientists are observing
as FSC noted: the subjective misinterpretation of a religious fanaticism reviewing the science isn't the same thing as an objective scientific experiment nor review of data

if you go looking for ghosts you will find them because your mind will see them behind every spooky or unexplained event (conspiracist ideation/alien believers do the same thing) - that isn't science, it's bias on the part of the eu or "true believer"


Jun 13, 2016
@FSC

As you mentioned previously, "The EU manage to use, to a greater or lesser degree, the first 3 of these elements"


4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner


I don't see why they wouldn't perform several types of tests that would be reproducible with same good results as before.


5. Analyze the data


That goes without saying.

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis


Conclusions appear to have already been drawn while awaiting new evidences from SM observations

7. Publish results


Where? Mainstream journals are biased against EU, just as you are

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


SM scientists may exhibit signs of "confirmation bias" which could imperil test results

Jun 13, 2016
Cont'd last
Sometimes, the data is agreeable to EU... But science is a revisable animal ...
the point is not the arguments that are supported by the data and evidence

evidence is the key

the point is the non-evidenciary claims, predictions only after the fact, or the blatantly false repeated lies (like astrophysicists not knowing plasma physics)

more to the point: the repetition of a known false claim that is refuted/falsified by evidence

when you have a belief you tend to seek validation for said belief
that is religion... it is also the eu

science doesn't work like that, and it will adapt what can be validated or proven with evidence (See GR/SR, Newtonian gravity, QM, etc)

it isn't just that they make claims, but that they make claims that are invalid, have no evidence, and are not under the same strict guidelines of the scientific method like science is required to be

IOW: pseudoscience

Jun 13, 2016
EU scientists are not only performing their own lab experiments...
There ARE no EU scientists; there are only "gentleman experimentalists" playing with tubes of plasma in their basements, and producing no worthwhile results. No peer-reviewed papers in respected journals, no mathematical analysis, no attempts to DISPROVE their own theories, just affirmative bias.
...they are also observing what StandardModel scientists are observing
- FSC

You seem extremely prejudicial toward those EU proponents of whom I have referred to as 'EU scientists'. Why? What are you afraid of? You are also disrespectful of their work, saying such things as, "playing with tubes of plasma in their basements". Exactly HOW do you KNOW that they have produced no worthwhile results? Have you been to their labs to watch their experiments and the results?
As far as "peer-reviewed" papers, do you honestly believe that they would get a fair shake from those who are only concerned with SM?

Jun 13, 2016
(cont'd)
@FSC
"Peer-reviewed" papers, in the case of Electric Universe Theory, clearly would necessitate the work to be reviewed by EU scientists who are greatly familiar with the Theory and all that it entails. Anything less, such as a group of SM scientists trying to overturn EU theory, would have an end result like the parable of the 12 blind men trying to describe an elephant.

EU scientists are, for the most part, already familiar with Standard Model. They have studied the SM and graduated from that to a higher order of science that they evidently feel relates more with the actual conditions of the Universe and its reality.
Within the SM itself, there is evidence that an atmosphere of pseudoscience exists, particularly with such qualities of unknown and highly improbable objects as Dark Matter. Whether or not it actually exhibits a gravitational force is open to conjecture and is still grossly non-absolute. EU doesn't search for phantoms & that is one big difference.

Jun 13, 2016
EU scientists are not only performing their own lab experiments...
...no mathematical analysis, no attempts to DISPROVE their own theories, just affirmative bias.
NO! - they are LOOKING AT the results published by the "SM" scientists and making their own subjective appraisals of the data. That's not OBSERVATION. Anything which looks like something in their pitifully small bag of tricks, and they're crowing from the rooftops.

They make no analysis of the raw data, no attempts to prove or disprove numerically or mathematically the relevance or otherwise to their "theories".
- FSC

Exactly what DO you know wrt whichever attempts that they make in order to falsify EUTheory?
If they look at an image and see something that complies with their expected outcome of the Theory, then you should not be so prejudiced that you can't afford to give them some leeway. And yes, it IS OBSERVATION; why do you worry when they see what they had expected that complements theory?

Jun 13, 2016
(cont'd)
@FSC
You should examine your motive for being so prejudicial toward EU and its adherents. If you are as secure as you think you are in your firm belief in the Standard Model, then why do you seem threatened by any possibility that Electric Universe model will come out on top as the Theory that actually reflects the true nature and condition of the Universe. Perhaps you (and others) are extremely fearful of change...OR you may just have an aversion to competition.

There is still more and more data coming in from the Telescopes and other instruments. I personally prefer to "wait and see" what happens before I throw my support for one side or the other. Science is revisable in any case, and astrophysics needs to be more flexible, as well.

Jun 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 13, 2016
The reporting on the Martian dust storms by conventional sources has left out crucial details. In particular ...

(1) The Martian dust devils bla bla bla

https://www.thund...vils.htm

-Chris_Reeve

The reporting on the Martian dust storms by Chris_Reeve has left out crucial details. In particular, their strongly seasonal nature, the actual topic of the article and something which EU mythology can't explain. Perhaps Chris_Reeve's vomiting of one off-topic comment after another is meant to distract from this fact.

Jun 14, 2016
@Chris_R
Although many are not aware of it, Big Bang theory aligns very well with religious dogma wrt the Creation of something from nothing.
The Big Bang created something which did not exist prior to it (BB). So, it is logical to say that the Big Bang was the SOURCE of all that happened after the event, and therefore it was the Big Bang that CREATED all matter/energy. Intelligent Design is required to create something out of nothing. Therefore, it is logical to say that it was Intelligent Design who caused the Big Bang event.

Jun 14, 2016
And most importantly, one in agreement with all observations.

Oh the irony! How's that dark matter thing going? Let us know when they find the other 96% of your missing Universe that seems to be in agreement with about 4% of the observations.

Jun 14, 2016
@Chris_R
Although many are not aware of it, Big Bang theory aligns very well with religious dogma wrt the Creation of something from nothing.

I have a feeling he is aware of this fact;

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Hannes Alfvèn

There is no reason to believe in creationism, where science or religious based.

Jun 14, 2016
Let's Find a Simpler, Less Troubled Cosmology

The Cult of the Big Bang: Was There a Bang?
William C Mitchell
(p182)

It is of interest to me that this poster cites a book of a man's opinions published 20 years ago (1995) which itself cites "problems" that were more in his imagination than real issues of science. While there is certainly a fringe element that likes to think that pointing out that because there are things we don't know, it somehow means we don't know anything, real scientists recognize that we actually know a lot and that our knowledge is built on the contributions of thousands, not just a few big names.
.
That we don't know everything is a strong impetus for those who would study what we do know in hopes of bringing enlightenment to that which is still not well understood. These fools who follow some unseen, unreplicatable pseudo-science in the face of actual observations are correctly targets of derision and laughter.

Jun 14, 2016
These fools who follow some unseen, unreplicatable pseudo-science in the face of actual observations are correctly targets of derision and laughter

Indeed! Two words; dark matter.
When your pseudoscience locates the missing 96% of your Universe you may not longer face the derision you deserve.

Jun 15, 2016
They will never find "Dark Matter". That 95% is something altogether different from what is expected to be. It's even beyond imagining...not even in a million years would they understand it.

Jun 15, 2016
Y'know, this is all pretty simple.

If the universe was the same in the deep past where'd the CMB come from?
If the universe was the same in the deep past how come older galaxies have different shapes from newer ones?
If the universe was the same in the deep past how come the ratios of the light elements conform to the predictions of nucleosynthesis?
If the universe was the same in the deep past how come the rate of expansion is increasing?

That's just a smattering of the evidence. There's plenty more. When so many different lines of evidence all say the same thing, how dumb do you have to be to ignore it?

Jun 15, 2016
Y'know, this is all pretty simple.

Agreed.
If the universe was the same in the deep past where'd the CMB come from?

The currents lacing throughout the galaxy.
If the universe was the same in the deep past how come older galaxies have different shapes from newer ones?

You're assuming you know with absolute certainty which are older/newer, such is not the case.

Jun 15, 2016
If the universe was the same in the deep past how come the ratios of the light elements conform to the predictions of nucleosynthesis?

Confirmation bias.
If the universe was the same in the deep past how come the rate of expansion is increasing?

Is it? Or are the measuring sticks flawed?
When so many different lines of evidence all say the same thing, how dumb do you have to be to ignore it?

How dumb do you have to be to latch onto a Cosmology that is missing 96% of the Universe?

Jun 15, 2016
The currents lacing throughout the galaxy
unsupported conjecture - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and since what you are claiming goes against known validated physics, please supply the evidence
You're assuming you know with absolute certainty which are older/newer, such is not the case
unsupported conjecture - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; please supply the evidence

you're assuming this based upon a flawed understanding of modern physics & astrophysics that i can demonstrate is degraded enough that you allow the bias of decades old flawed opinion to be considered factual, regardless of the empirical evidence demonstrating otherwise
Confirmation bias
that should be easily proven so please post the validated peer reviewed study of the metadata supporting your conclusion

How dumb do you have to be to latch onto a Cosmology that answers nothing with facts and can't predict any better than an astrologer?

Jun 16, 2016
Is it?
if it isn't then you should be able to provide the evidence easily enough, right?
Or are the measuring sticks flawed?
or.. maybe not

here's the deal:
the scientific method works. it's proven itself

if yall can't abide by the scrutiny, for whatever reason, then you are, by definition, a pseudoscience

this applies to your eu every bit as much as super-magnets that cure everything from crabs and herpes to cancer and halitosis...

if ya can't provide the evidence then all you are doing is making a claim
IOW- you're preaching a religion based upon faith

that makes you no different than ISIS, creationists, astrologers and other cranks

... you can all yourself whatever you want, just like the creationists tried putting the word "science" in their name, but it still doesn't remove the fact that you don't abide by the scientific method

that is why your eu will always be relegated to pseudoscience when it comes down to it

Jun 16, 2016
LMAO
Those who continuously PREACH about the scientific method, and yet have no ability to contribute that which should be a part of their own knowledge base from learning and gaining their knowledge as a young college student at a fully accredited University the way most people do (that means not having to refer to Wiki and Google)...should learn to STFU when those who are truly interested in Science and learning all there is to learn for their self or continuing-education...are conducting a good scientific discourse/discussion on the SCIENCE itself, and not the silly shit wrt whether or not the scientific method was breached somehow.

Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 21, 2016
Otto_Szucks 1 /5 (6) Jun 15, 2016
They will never find "Dark Matter". That 95% is something altogether different from what is expected to be. It's even beyond imagining...not even in a million years would they understand it.


So you spend a big part of your day reading what "they" have to say.

Of course not. QED: You come here to irritate those "know nothings", which is the essence of trolling.
- Frank Zappa? Phys1? CapnFrumpy?

I have been posting with my primary nick since early 2012, as well as reading PO articles and comments since early 2006. Do you have a problem with my reading silly posts from dumb posters and attempting to find out why they think as they do?
i rarely see you post anything of value. In fact, I haven't seen you post anything of value at all. Are you here for the science and maybe learn something...or not?

Jul 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2016
I would wager more than 50% of the one star votes on this site come from one source.

And, that would be AGreatWankerer. He has a suck-puppet for every pill the nurse hands him in the morning.

I dearly want to meet one in a bar some day.

Why? So you could bend over.
So desperate, AGreatWankerer.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more