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: 229 - 179

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 CaneWarning:


Wealth management


And I thought you were the Poster Child for the Power Company in S FL....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
is this your house?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Correction, renewables are around 16% of the energy mix in germany (2009). Mostly from bio-mass and solar technology growth.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
If I don't run my pool pump bad things happen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


I'm doing it all wrong apparently.

1. When it gets cold, I heat my house to 76 degrees.
2. I don't do this.
3. I have a programmable thermostat, but haven't programed it.
4. Monthly? Oops.
5. Every room in my house has a ceiling fan, and I leave them all on 24/7.
6. Oops again.
7. I run my pump all the time, year round.
8. Oops.
9. Hey, I actually do this one!!!
10. I cool my house to 74 degrees when it's warm, even when I'm away from home.


Well that explains that why you have a $1000.00 or more a month in power bill....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


I'm doing it all wrong apparently.

1. When it gets cold, I heat my house to 76 degrees.
2. I don't do this.
3. I have a programmable thermostat, but haven't programed it.
4. Monthly? Oops.
5. Every room in my house has a ceiling fan, and I leave them all on 24/7.
6. Oops again.
7. I run my pump all the time, year round.
8. Oops.
9. Hey, I actually do this one!!!
10. I cool my house to 74 degrees when it's warm, even when I'm away from home.


Yeah, every degree you go below 78 gives you a pretty hefty increase in energy usage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
What kind of work do you do canewarning?


Wealth management
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chicklit:
The Germans are way ahead of us in the solar power department. They have outfitted homes and their goal is all solar by 2020.
It is expensive to get started, but then costs nothing and they can sell the excess energy.

Sadly this seems to be a rumor :) Currently they try to extend nuclear reactor lifetime and plan on cutting back solar subsidies. Nevertheless the solar sector is booming. Currently around 16% of renewable energy make up the electricity consumption if i'm right. But there are huge steps underway such as off-shore wind farms. The hall renewable sector has big growth numbers, fueled by very high electricity bills.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
What kind of work do you do canewarning?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting charlottefl:
Here's a few cost saving tips:

1. Heat your home at 68 degrees or cooler with the thermostat fan switch on "auto." To save even more, lower your thermostat to 65 degrees or cooler at bedtime or when you're away from home.

2. Use the auto sensor function on your dryer, if you have one, to conserve energy by not over-drying your clothes.

3. Install a programmable thermostat to adjust the temperature automatically and maximize your energy savings. It also helps to maintain a comfortable temperature when you wake up or return home.

4. Clean or replace your air conditioner's filter every month to trim your cooling costs and help your unit run more efficiently.

5. Turn off your ceiling fan when you leave the room. A fan that runs constantly can cost up to $7 a month depending on size and age.

6. Avoid pre-rinsing dishes before putting in dishwasher. It can save up to $70 a year.

7. Limit the time you run your pool pump:
Summer: no more than six hours a day.
Winter: no more than four hours a day.

8. Adjust the water level on your washing machine to match the load size, especially when using hot water. Always use a cold rinse.

9. Clean the lint filter in your dryer before every load to dry your clothes faster and save money.

10. Cool your home at 78 degrees or warmer with the thermostat fan switch on "auto." For additional savings, raise your thermostat to 82 degrees or warmer when you're away from home.


I'm doing it all wrong apparently.

1. When it gets cold, I heat my house to 76 degrees.
2. I don't do this.
3. I have a programmable thermostat, but haven't programed it.
4. Monthly? Oops.
5. Every room in my house has a ceiling fan, and I leave them all on 24/7.
6. Oops again.
7. I run my pump all the time, year round.
8. Oops.
9. Hey, I actually do this one!!!
10. I cool my house to 74 degrees when it's warm, even when I'm away from home.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:
Lol I leave for a couple hours and we are still discussing the amazingly high electric bill :P

From ABC:

"The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005."


I'm not even gonna touch that (not with a 10 ft pole) ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The summer heat in Sacramento reaches in the 100s and our bill is usually below $300.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:

Isn't the highest consumption during a heatwave?
Should be dependant of energy technology and temperature. For example here in europe during last heatwaves many nuclear reactor needs to shut down, because of hot cooling waters from rivers. This winter again france had to import electricity, aswell as during big heatwaves. Im not totaly against nuclear for reasons of reducing oil/coal dependence but i think this technique has some limits.


There is very high demand during heat waves but we almost reached capacity during this last cold spell. 24,000(and change) megawatts
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Germans are way ahead of everybody in the solar power department. They have outfitted homes and their goal is all solar by 2020.
It is expensive to get started, but then costs nothing and they can sell the excess energy.
GermanySolarPower
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here's a few cost saving tips:

1. Heat your home at 68 degrees or cooler with the thermostat fan switch on "auto." To save even more, lower your thermostat to 65 degrees or cooler at bedtime or when you're away from home.

2. Use the auto sensor function on your dryer, if you have one, to conserve energy by not over-drying your clothes.

3. Install a programmable thermostat to adjust the temperature automatically and maximize your energy savings. It also helps to maintain a comfortable temperature when you wake up or return home.

4. Clean or replace your air conditioner's filter every month to trim your cooling costs and help your unit run more efficiently.

5. Turn off your ceiling fan when you leave the room. A fan that runs constantly can cost up to $7 a month depending on size and age.

6. Avoid pre-rinsing dishes before putting in dishwasher. It can save up to $70 a year.

7. Limit the time you run your pool pump:
Summer: no more than six hours a day.
Winter: no more than four hours a day.

8. Adjust the water level on your washing machine to match the load size, especially when using hot water. Always use a cold rinse.

9. Clean the lint filter in your dryer before every load to dry your clothes faster and save money.

10. Cool your home at 78 degrees or warmer with the thermostat fan switch on "auto." For additional savings, raise your thermostat to 82 degrees or warmer when you're away from home.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


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


Way high for me up here in Pensacola. Even in Jul/Aug. Older brick house (1968) with not too good insulation either. Our temps are comparable in Summer. This includes my pool pump 24/7 in Summer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:


Maybe in your region,but heating by natural Gas is a Big industry and keeps the Majority of Dixie Warm,,as opposed to Fuel Oil in the Neast region.


One can reduce their cooling cost too in Summer by using a few tips and a few dollars Insulating the Home.

And we could all easily go off grid in the Lower lattitudes by installing solar Power and even pay back to the grid and have ones meter running backwards.

Lots of folks here are Going solar as the Cost to benefit comes down every year


I agree Pat just checking into Solar Power.... Although my power bill has not been over $200.00 for 3 yrs I still think it will be cheaper than Gas and Electric....

Taco :0)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting charlottefl:


I work for the largest electric company in the state of FL (FPL) It costs almost 4X as much to run your heat as your air. In fact you can run your air for a month for what it costs you to run your heat for a week.

Isn't the highest consumption during a heatwave?
Should be dependant of energy technology, place to heat/cool and temperature. For example here in europe during last heatwaves many nuclear reactor needs to shut down, because of hot cooling waters from rivers. This winter again france had to import electricity, aswell as during big heatwaves. Im not totaly against nuclear for reasons of reducing oil/coal dependence but i think this technique has some limits.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting charlottefl:


It depends on a lot of things. The SQ footage of your house, what temp you set your thermostat at. Lighting is definitely a big energy hog, depending on exactly what kind of lighting you have. I would say it's definitely higher than the average household.


I can almost bet you its my outdoor accent lighting. I have a ton of it all around the house. Oh well, at least they can pick out my house from space. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Lol I leave for a couple hours and we are still discussing the amazingly high electric bill :P

From ABC:

"The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


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


It depends on a lot of things. The SQ footage of your house, what temp you set your thermostat at. Lighting is definitely a big energy hog, depending on exactly what kind of lighting you have. I would say it's definitely higher than the average household.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
One has to have the sq. Ftg of the Home, and the appliances there to guesstimate that,I would figure.

But $1000 a month sound ridiculously high for a 3 Bedroom Home,anywhere.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting charlottefl:



Yeah, just a lot of people are surprised to hear that, being such a big difference in energy usage.


Is a $1000 a month bill in the summer way over the average?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


Good thing we hardly ever have to run our heat in Florida!



Yeah, just a lot of people are surprised to hear that, being such a big difference in energy usage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting charlottefl:


I work for the largest electric company in the state of FL (FPL) It costs almost 4X as much to run your heat as your air. In fact you can run your air for a month for what it costs you to run your heat for a week.


Good thing we hardly ever have to run our heat in Florida!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting charlottefl:


I work for the largest electric company in the state of FL (FPL) It costs almost 4X as much to run your heat as your air. In fact you can run your air for a month for what it costs you to run your heat for a week.


Maybe in your region,but heating by natural Gas is a Big industry and keeps the Majority of Dixie Warm,,as opposed to Fuel Oil in the Neast region.


One can reduce their cooling cost too in Summer by using a few tips and a few dollars Insulating the Home.

And we could all easily go off grid in the Lower lattitudes by installing solar Power and even pay back to the grid and have ones meter running backwards.

Lots of folks here are Going solar as the Cost to benefit comes down every year
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

“There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,” said James Hansen, the director of GISS. “There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:
Maybe our electricity rates are just higher in Tampa than other parts of the state? We have Tampa Electric afterall.


I work for the largest electric company in the state of FL (FPL) It costs almost 4X as much to run your heat as your air. In fact you can run your air for a month for what it costs you to run your heat for a week.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting caneswatch:


Grothar!!!!!!


CANES!!!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
As i have been saying for over a week now....there is one heck of a storm coming to the Tennessee and Ohio Valley coming. This cold air coming and the moisture is going to be a big problem......could be a big ice storm.





Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 177 Comments: 20430
Quoting Grothar:


"T M"


Grothar!!!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Scientists aren't known for being the savviest of public speakers, but Penn State's Richard Alley is that rare researcher who knows how to give a talk. Alley -- who's willing to sing, dance, and gesticulate vigorously to get a point across -- gave a lecture about carbon dioxide to an overflow crowd of scientists at the American Geophysical Union meeting this year that's well worth watching.

Blogger and University of Toronto computer scientist Steve Easterbrook has an excellent blow-by-blow of the talk, but the heart of it came down to this point, which Alley made on his last slide:

An increasing body of science indicates that CO2 has been the most important controller of Earth's climate.

If you want the details, (and the details are a pleasure to sit through in this case because of Alley's gregarious speaking style) AGU has posted video and slides of the full talk. Still want to know more about carbon dioxide? NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) released new details about the distribution of carbon dioxide in the troposphere, the region of Earth's atmosphere that is located between 5 to 12 kilometers, or 3 to 7 miles, above Earth's surface. (JPL also released a ten question quiz about the gas that you can access here).

Meanwhile, Alley participated in a NASA science update back in 2005 that explored the nature of sea level rise, a topic that NASA researchers continue to investigate and that you can explore interactively using our Sea Level Viewer.

--Adam Voiland, NASA's Earth Science News Team
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The data is empirical and dosent have a dog in the Climate Change debate.

All the data presented and peer reviewed along with the latest modeling show the warming and direct causes.
And whats is most disturbing,ALL the latest Climate Modeling shows the warming accelerating at a faster rate than previous runs.

And the truth or the consensus among the Field Phd's dosent care if one believes in the findings at all.

The Future has a stake in the debate as they will be dealing with the effects,as we older folks,grin and say,..

"...Well the data was there for decades..."

Why didnt we do something ?








Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:
Maybe our electricity rates are just higher in Tampa than other parts of the state? We have Tampa Electric afterall.


I think TECO is higher that FPL and Progress Energy........I don't know for sure tho.
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 177 Comments: 20430
Correct Grothar...blind followers...never will change their minds...either sides.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
No matter where you stand on the GW/CC issue, anti or pro, nothing is going to change your minds. For us 'tweeners, no arguments I have seen either way is not persuasive. It reminds me of a line in a movie, which defines where you that are stalwart in your beliefs stand:
Imhotep… Imhotep… Imhotep… Imhotep...

(Gotta be a movie buff to get this)


"T M"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Maybe our electricity rates are just higher in Tampa than other parts of the state? We have Tampa Electric afterall.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
No matter where you stand on the GW/CC issue, anti or pro, nothing is going to change your minds. For us 'tweeners, no arguments I have seen either way is not persuasive. It reminds me of a line in a movie, which defines where you that are stalwart in your beliefs stand:
Imhotep… Imhotep… Imhotep… Imhotep...

(Gotta be a movie buff to get this)


Honestly, I believe the really bad over the top Anti-GW peeps are so turned off and so ticked off from the extreme GW peeps that it makes them so narrow minded they don't think straight. I find myself trying to collect myself at times because of the same.
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 177 Comments: 20430
Is it possible to have a 25-30 a month Electric Bill? The new surcharge that was put in place from the Gov. is $25 alone.....I don't know?
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 177 Comments: 20430
Quoting SWFLgazer:
CaneWarning: You spend more in a month for electricity than I spend in a year. I live in FL because I like hot. If I liked cool, I'd live in Port Angeles. 10 months of the year, my electric bill is between $25 and $35. The months I want to heat run $100 to $200.


My Electric bill runs 350-400 every month during the Summer and 250-300 during the winter....except this month which i will hate to see with the cold weather!
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 177 Comments: 20430
No matter where you stand on the GW/CC issue, anti or pro, nothing is going to change your minds. For us 'tweeners, no arguments I have seen either way is not persuasive. It reminds me of a line in a movie, which defines where you that are stalwart in your beliefs stand:
Imhotep… Imhotep… Imhotep… Imhotep...

(Gotta be a movie buff to get this)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There are several severe weather videos from today and before from around the US(ireport).
edit removed video because of autoplay ...
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:


Shoot -- you always get the good stuff. :)


LMAO !!!! I was sitting here and I started hearing this crazy banging noise and I look outside and it's hailing like crazy. Too dark outside and too wet to see if it damaged my car.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
GAWD, Atmo, I'm starving and you're making me drool!
All we've got is my left-over meatloaf... which is FANTASTIC, btw, LOL.

I hear hubby puttering in the kitchen...SOS, gotta' go!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Region: ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
Location: 51.357°N, 178.106°W
Magnitude: 5.1
Depth: 48.1 km (29.9 miles)
Universal Time (UTC):
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 23:09:01
Time near the Epicenter:
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 01:09:01 PM
Location with respect to nearby cities:
117 km (72 miles) WSW (240°) from Adak, AK
284 km (176 miles) WSW (252°) from Atka, AK
2039 km (1267 miles) WSW (250°) from Anchorage, AK
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15749
Quoting Clickerous:


no problem! I'm a hoosier living in s. florida so i'm especially excited about the super bowl, and I can give you all the corn recipes you need lol


EXCELLENT! You, too? So is TampaSpin. Please WU copies of your corny recipes to TornadoDude (going to Purdue) and TampaSpin (from Indiana). They'll get the joke!

The way I see it, neither N.O. nor IN can lose either way... Brees having gone to Purdue; Manning from N.O. Not an original thought from me, of course -- but it sure is comforting to know that everyone is having their moment in the sun. whoops, might rain in Miami... oh who cares...MUD BALL!

BBL.

Remember recipes4relief, all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:
170. PcolaDan 11:19 PM GMT on January 25, 2010
Quoting Clickerous:
can someone mail me please to where I can donate a few recipes to the cookbook :)

WUmail sent


THANK YOU BOTH!

Saints Fans: Please send RMM___ all those fantastic N.O. Creole and Cajun recipes!

Colts Fans: Corn on the Cob, Corn off the Cob, Corn Chowder, Corn Dogs, Creamed (Yuck) Corn...that's all I've got.

Also, WU-ers, please remember to put your birthday on BarnDweller's Blog. The Geminis always post twice.

Hmm, I need to dig up that crawfish Monica recipe to go with the Doberge cake...

Got good, everyday, ones for blackened redfish and, of course, the usual Monday red beans and rice I could share, too. (you'll never appreciate a good red beans and rice until you eat a good red beans and rice...just doesn't sound tantilizing)

Question: Do they eat in Indiana? Tdude?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Region: CENTRAL PERU
Geographic coordinates: 8.546S, 74.467W
Magnitude: 5.8 Mw
Depth: 153 km
Universal Time (UTC): 25 Jan 2010 22:52:47
Time near the Epicenter: 25 Jan 2010 17:52:47

Location with respect to nearby cities:
19 km (12 miles) SSE (158 degrees) of Pucallpa, Peru
223 km (138 miles) WSW (244 degrees) of Cruzeiro do Sul, Brazil
242 km (151 miles) NE (51 degrees) of Huanuco, Peru 486 km (302 miles) NE (36 degrees) of LIMA, Peru
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15749
181. Skyepony (Mod)
Quoting gregpinehurstnc:
FRIDAY NIGHTS MODEL SOUNDINGS FOR GREENSBORO FROM THE GFS DEPICT A
MASSIVE SUBFREEZING COLD LAYER STRETCHING UPWARD TO 5000 FEET...
TOPPED BY A LAYER OF AS WARM AS 41 DEGREES. THIS IS HIGHLY
UNLIKELY AND WOULD PERHAPS BE SEEN ONCE IN A GENERATION. will some one tell me what this could do,, very curios about,, tia, gregg


GFS has a low tapping the gulf ~1000mb screaming through there at that time, pretty good lower level vorticity. Fairly safe to assume moisture would be involved. Hail/ice event would be my guess.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:
170. PcolaDan 11:19 PM GMT on January 25, 2010
Quoting Clickerous:
can someone mail me please to where I can donate a few recipes to the cookbook :)

WUmail sent


THANK YOU BOTH!

Saints Fans: Please send RMM___ all those fantastic N.O. Creole and Cajun recipes!

Colts Fans: Corn on the Cob, Corn off the Cob, Corn Chowder, Corn Dogs, Creamed (Yuck) Corn...that's all I've got.

Also, WU-ers, please remember to put your birthday on BarnDweller's Blog. The Geminis always post twice.


no problem! I'm a hoosier living in s. florida so i'm especially excited about the super bowl, and I can give you all the corn recipes you need lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting usa777:
We just got hit by a nasty little hail storm just now here in Annapolis. Very strange weather for this time of the year here in maryland. Biggest stone I saw was about quarter sized.


Shoot -- you always get the good stuff. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 229 - 179

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 JeffMasters

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

Overcast
55 °F
Overcast