Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2010

Share this Blog
4
+

Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs the popular global warming contrarian website, "Watts Up With That", was convinced that many of the U.S. network of surface weather stations had serious flaws in their siting that was causing an artificial warm bias in the observed increase in U.S. temperatures of 1.1°F over the past century. To address this concern, Watts established the website surfacestations.org in 2007, which enlisted an army of volunteers to travel the U.S. to obtain photographic evidence of poor siting of weather stations. The goal was to document cases where "microclimate" influence was important, and could be contaminating temperature measurements. (Note that this is a separate issue from the Urban Heat Island, the phenomenon where a metropolitan area in general is warmer than surrounding rural areas). Watts' volunteers--650 strong--documented the siting of 865 of the 1,218 stations used in the National Climatic Data Center's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for tracking climate change. As reported in Watt's 2009 publication put out by the Heartland Institute, the volunteers "found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat." Watts surmised that these poorly-sited stations were responsible for much of the increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century, due to "a bias trend that likely results from the thermometers being closer to buildings, asphalt, etc." Watts concluded, "the U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be the best in the world, it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable".


Figure 1. A poorly sited temperature sensor in Marysville, California, used for the USHCN. The sensor is situation right next to an asphalt parking lot, instead in the middle of a grassy field, as it is supposed to be. The sensor is also adjacent to several several air conditioners that blow their exhaust into the air nearby. Image credit: surfacestation.org.

Analysis of the data disagrees with Watts' conclusion
While Watts' publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review--the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


Figure 2. Annual average maximum and minimum unadjusted temperature change calculated using (c) maximum and (d) minimum temperatures from good and poor exposure sites (Menne 2010). Poor sites showed a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites were slightly warmer. The net effect was a cool bias in poorly sited stations. The dashed lines are for stations ranked by NOAA, while the solid lines are for the stations ranked by surfacestations.org.

Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week's 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record. Dr. Menne's study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the "good" siting category, while 454 fell into the "bad" category. According to the authors, though, "the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average". Dr. Menne's study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.

Why did the poorly sited stations measure cooler temperatures?
The reason why the poorly-sites stations measured cooler temperatures lies in the predominant types of thermometers used at the two types of sites. An electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) is used at 75% of the poor sites. These MMTS sensors are attached by cable to an indoor readout device, and are consequently limited by cable length as to how far they can be sited from the building housing the indoor readout device. As a result, they are often located close to heated buildings, paved surfaces, air conditioner exhausts, etc. It turns out that these MMTS thermometers have a flaw that causes them to measure minimum temperatures that are slightly too warm, and maximum temperatures that are considerably too cool, leading to an overall cool bias in measured average temperatures. In contrast, only 30% of the "good" sites used the MMTS sensors. The "good" sites predominantly used Liquid in Glass (LiG) thermometers housed in wooden shelters that were more easily located further from the buildings where the observers worked. Since the poorly-sites stations were dominantly equipped with MMTS thermometers, they tended to measure temperatures that were too cool, despite their poor siting.


Figure 3. Comparison of U.S. average annual (a) maximum and (b) minimum temperatures calculated using USHCN version 2 temperatures. Temperatures were adjusted to correct for changes in instrumentation, station relocations, and changes in the time of observation, making the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites. Good and poor site ratings are based on surfacestations.org. For comparison, the data between 2004 - 2008 taken by the new high-quality U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN, black dashed line) is shown, and displays excellent agreement for that time period. Image credit: Menne 2010.

Independent verification of recent USHCN annual temperatures
Clearly, the siting of many of the surface stations used to track climate change in the U.S. is not good. To address this issue, in 2004 NOAA created the U.S. Climate Reference Network, a collection of 114 stations in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The stations were sited and instrumented with climate studies in mind, and can provide an extremely high-quality independent check on the old USHCN network. Each of 114 stations at 107 locations (some stations were installed as nearby pairs) is equipped with very accurate instruments in a triplicate configuration so that each measurement can be checked for internal consistency. As shown in Figure 3, the USCRN air temperature departures for 2004 - 2008 are extremely well aligned with those derived from the USHCN version 2 temperature data. For these five years, the the difference between the mean annual temperatures measured by the old USHCN compared to the new USCRN was just 0.03°C, with a mathematical correlation coefficient (r-squared) of 0.997. Menne et al. concluded, "This finding provides independent verification that the USHCN version 2 data are consistent with research-quality measurements taken at pristine locations and do not contain spurious trends during the recent past even if sampled exclusively at poorly sited stations. While admittedly this period of coincident observations between the networks is rather brief, the value of the USCRN as a benchmark for reducing the uncertainty of historic observations from the USHCN and other networks will only increase with time". The authors finally concluded, "we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor siting".

Crediting Anthony Watts
The surfacestations.org effort coordinated by Anthony Watts has made a valuable contribution to science, helping us better understand the nature of the errors in the U.S. historical temperature data set. In his talk last week at the AMS conference, and in the credits of his paper, Dr. Menne had some genuinely grateful comments on the efforts of Anthony Watts and the volunteers of surfacestations.org. However, as of this writing, Watts has made no mention on surfacestations.org or on wattsupwiththat.com of Dr. Menne's study.

I'll have a new post Wednesday or Thursday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 529 - 479

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Quoting ElConando:
How early do you guys get up for these things wow lol. I guess passion breeds arguments.


I had class at 7:30 :P lol
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
How can they say anything is 15million years old? Everyone who reads the bible can see quite clearly that the earth is only 6-7000years old !!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
How early do you guys get up for these things wow lol. I guess passion breeds arguments.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hey Hydrus, looks like you have a pretty big winter storm heading your way.

Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting CaneWarning:
522. Thank goodness someone was around to measure that 15 million years ago.


Was it Floodman? ;)
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
522. Thank goodness someone was around to measure that 15 million years ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Your private blog? You compare a private blog post against the empirical and studied data from 100 years of climate science. And you insisting that GW is wrong, which would make you a noble prize winner or anyone who prove GW wrong.
And you just proven that you beside all the facts which has been posted here recently, you not seem to care or bother reading it. So this behaviour is called trolling (see blog rules).


Blog Rules
1. Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming, and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil and short.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.

Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England’s University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.

"We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice," Tripati said. "This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.

"We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago," she said. "We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said.

"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.

"We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history," Tripati said.

In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.

"We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity."

Today, the Arctic Ocean is covered with frozen ice all year long, an ice cap that has been there for about 14 million years.

"Prior to that, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic," Tripati said.

Some projections show carbon dioxide levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per million in the next century if no action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide, Tripati said. Such levels may have been reached on Earth 50 million years ago or earlier, said Tripati, who is working to push her data back much farther than 20 million years and to study the last 20 million years in detail.

More than 50 million years ago, there were no ice sheets on Earth, and there were expanded deserts in the subtropics, Tripati noted. The planet was radically different.

Co-authors on the Science paper are Christopher Roberts, a Ph.D. student in the department of Earth sciences at the University of Cambridge, and Robert Eagle, a postdoctoral scholar in the division of geological and planetary sciences at the California Institute of Technology.

The research was funded by UCLA's Division of Physical Sciences and the United Kingdom's National Environmental Research Council.

Tripati's research focuses on the development and application of chemical tools to study climate change throughout history. She studies the evolution of climate and seawater chemistry through time.

"I'm interested in understanding how the carbon cycle and climate have been coupled, and why they have been coupled, over a range of time-scales, from hundreds of years to tens of millions of years," Tripati said.

In addition to being published on the Science Express website, the paper will be published in the print edition of Science at a later date.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Reading back...

And I thought I should be worried about my CV joints a while ago in the car...it was just "-" clicks the world-over. Whew.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
520. IKE
Quoting Floodman:


There've been a few but even during Hurricane season I think that the admins respond to complaints about posts, rather than reading the blog post by post...

How are you doing, btw?


I've done better.

I'm alive and kicking though....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hurricane Ida Preliminary Report is out

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting IKE:
I don't think admin polices this blog much in the winter. I haven't seen anyone come on here talking about being put in "time-out" for X amount of hours, since the hurricane season.

125 days...
14 hours...
42 minutes...and it starts again.


There've been a few but even during Hurricane season I think that the admins respond to complaints about posts, rather than reading the blog post by post...

How are you doing, btw?
Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 9922
blah
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
516. IKE
I don't think admin polices this blog much in the winter. I haven't seen anyone come on here talking about being put in "time-out" for X amount of hours, since the hurricane season.

125 days...
14 hours...
42 minutes...and it starts again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormChaser81:


!Lame! Like nobody has seen the rules on here.

Thank you for the blog policing.

Whom appointed him...I can think of others a lot more qualified. Heck, isn't there even a residency-term requirement he falls short of to even be considered for the job?

Hmm, maybe we should bring in the attorney general...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
Quoting StormW:


By By el nino, see you next time around.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
it seen like some of you for got there is a Ignore user
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
drg0dOwnCountry
we don't need to be told the rules, everyone in here knows them.


Morning/Evening Aus... ignore him... It is just looking for another stir stick :)
hows it going Down under.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
drg0dOwnCountry
we don't need to be told the rules, everyone in here knows them.


hey Aussie, how was Australia Day?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
drg0dOwnCountry
we don't need to be told the rules, everyone in here knows them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
508. IKE
Quoting GrtLksQuest:


I really can't explain it. We have about 1600 sq. ft. on 2 levels, lower level is built into a hill overlooking the lake. We have radiant heat (electric) in the floor at that level. Our central heat is geothermal, using well water, so it is very efficient. We went from an uninsulated cottage to quite well insulated "lake house" (cottage vs. lake house is another story), replacing most windows and doors with high-end double-insulated ones. It seems to be working. We've also replaced most light bulbs with CFLs. We watch very little TV but speend quite a lot of time on computers (2). We read a lot - real books. Hope that helps.


Understand...thanks. You must not have a few freezers with food, running constantly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It occurs to me that though his science is poor his real finding-- that the majority of sensors are poorly placed relative to where they are supposed to be-- should be acted upon, to prevent future claims of science bias in the future.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Your private blog? You compare a private blog post against the empirical and studied data from 100 years of climate science. And you insisting that GW is wrong, which would make you a noble prize winner or anyone who prove GW wrong.
And you just proven that you beside all the facts which has been posted here recently, you not seem to care or bother reading it. So this behaviour is called trolling (see blog rules).


It's not my blog. and seriously??? now you are violating your own rules by personally attacking someone.

also, youre complaining about the blog I sourced, and you use Wiki as a reference!
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting IKE:


How do you get an electric bill of $18.57 a month? Is there anything turned on at your house?

Solar?


I really can't explain it. We have about 1600 sq. ft. on 2 levels, lower level is built into a hill overlooking the lake. We have radiant heat (electric) in the floor at that level. Our central heat is geothermal, using well water, so it is very efficient. We went from an uninsulated cottage to quite well insulated "lake house" (cottage vs. lake house is another story), replacing most windows and doors with high-end double-insulated ones. It seems to be working. We've also replaced most light bulbs with CFLs. We watch very little TV but speend quite a lot of time on computers (2). We read a lot - real books. Hope that helps.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:


Lol it doesnt, and if it does, please elaborate
Your private blog? You compare a private blog post against the empirical and studied data from 100 years of climate science. And you insisting that GW is wrong, which would make you a noble prize winner or anyone who prove GW wrong.
And you just proven that you beside all the facts which has been posted here recently, you not seem to care or bother reading it. So this behaviour is called trolling (see blog rules).
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Posted by: JeffMasters, 5:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2010
“However, as of this writing, Watts has made no mention on surfacestations.org
or on wattsupwiththat.com of Dr. Menne's study.”

Doc, I know you didn’t lie on purpose, you are just computer challenged.
Go to Watts site, look at the top right of the home page.
See the word “search”?
Type in Menne.
Then click on enter.

Watts has blogged about Menne’s study, referenced Menne’s study, posted links to the
direct pdf file, thanked Menne for the mention, discussed what Watts considers the short comings of Menne’s study, etc
and so has Roger Pielke Sr.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
No more opinions? Blog rule number 10 applies here btw.


Lol it doesnt, and if it does, please elaborate
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Blog Rules
1. Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming, and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil and short.
2. Stay on topic.
3. No monomania.
4. No hot linking external or copyright images without the image owner's permission.
5. Do not circumvent a ban. Most bans last 24 hours or less, please accept the ban. If you create a new username to circumvent a ban, you will be blocked from the site completely.
6. No comments that contain only personal notes such as, "Good Morning!", or "You've got mail, X".
7. Do not "1st!", "1st post!", or any of the numerical/linguistic derivatives. This is a worthless use of blog space.
8. No spamming.
9. No spamming.
10. Seriously, no spamming. Spamming includes but is not limited to, trying to sell products, trying to solicit traffic for your own blog, trying to solicit traffic for other commercial entities, etc. Do not post links to your own site unless they are directly relevant and even then, use sparingly.


!Lame! Like nobody has seen the rules on here.

Thank you for the blog policing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:
thoughts on this site:
No more opinions? Blog rule number 10 applies here btw.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
And the most important tip of all:

Tips

Do not enter games of oneupmanship with trolls or bloggers you find to be annoying. You will be banned along side them, as your verbal jousts consume the space and time everyone else is sharing. If you come across a troll or another blogger whom you find to be irritating, please use the site reporting tools and your ignore list.
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
497. Pot meet kettle.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
thoughts on this site: http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/global-warming-proven-false/
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting Ossqss:
Interesting site with interesting info on the direct impact of the WWF on the IPCC reports :)

http://www.noconsensus.org/


More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report


ROFLMAO, I went to that link... one of the articles is titled "Meet some smart people who beg to differ" one of the people they are using is George Carlin, I'm sorry... that doesn't exactly give you a warm fuzzy feeling about it.

Don't get me wrong... I love the 7 words... but...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


Too funny. Imagine trying to imagine you explaining that arrest to a future employer though.


Lol I'd probably get a high five for it
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting tornadodude:


LOL try to hit her with one :P then get arrested....


Too funny. Imagine trying to imagine you explaining that arrest to a future employer though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
492. IKE
Quoting GrtLksQuest:


I'm reposting this from earlier -

Quoting CaneWarning:


Is a $1000 a month bill in the summer way over the average?



I came in late on this discussion but it aroused my curiosity, so I calculated the monthly average for our 2009 electric bill. - It is $18.57. BTW we live in SW Michigan


How do you get an electric bill of $18.57 a month? Is there anything turned on at your house?

Solar?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:



1> Get in asnowball fight!


2> Barf?


LOL try to hit her with one :P then get arrested....
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting tornadodude:
on a side note, the 2 inches of snow we got yesterday is perfect for making snowballs, and Lady Gaga is gonna be here tonight. so, guess what I'm gonna do? ;)



1> Get in a snowball fight!


2> Barf?
jk
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting IKE:


From 130 to 441.23? OMG.


I'm reposting this from earlier -

Quoting CaneWarning:


Is a $1000 a month bill in the summer way over the average?



I came in late on this discussion but it aroused my curiosity, so I calculated the monthly average for our 2009 electric bill. - It is $18.57. BTW we live in SW Michigan
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
on a side note, the 2 inches of snow we got yesterday is perfect for making snowballs, and Lady Gaga is gonna be here tonight. so, guess what I'm gonna do? ;)
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
It's curious that you start your post here with an personal insult, which btw is exactly again? Anyway your comment has been flagged for removal.


What color is the sky of the world you're living in?


Thats the left for ya. If you don't agree they try to shut you up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


Not sure.. but maybe I should have said it earlier :) I would have, but we know how shy and reserved I am.


I wish you would speak your mind more instead of being so reserved all the time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


Not sure.. but maybe I should have said it earlier :) I would have, but we know how shy and reserved I am.


Lol oh yes, very :P
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting tornadodude:
so, where'd he go?


Not sure.. but maybe I should have said it earlier :) I would have, but we know how shy and reserved I am.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
so, where'd he go?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
later i got to go bb at lunch
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 169 Comments: 53296
Quoting Orcasystems:


Hey KOG, hows it going...
Looks like you may be pushing another cold front down towards the GOM, you trying to get us killed?
killed who for what
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 169 Comments: 53296
Interesting site with interesting info on the direct impact of the WWF on the IPCC reports :)

http://www.noconsensus.org/


More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
YEP stupid is as stupid does


My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201

Viewing: 529 - 479

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
67 °F
Partly Cloudy