2010: tied with 2005 for warmest year in history

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:23 PM GMT on January 16, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

The year 2010 was tied with 2005 as Earth's warmest year in history, according to separate calculations performed by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Temperatures during 2010 were 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. NOAA reported that the Northern Hemisphere had its warmest year on record in 2010, the Southern Hemisphere its 6th warmest, land areas their 2nd warmest, and the oceans their 3rd warmest. Global satellite-measured temperatures of the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere during 2010 were virtually tied with 1998 for warmest on record, according to the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). The 1998 temperatures were 0.01°C warmer than 2010, but the difference is so small that the two years should be considered tied for first place. These measurements are very sensitive to the effect of major El Niño events that warm the waters and atmosphere over the Eastern Pacific. Thus the 1998 El Niño--the strongest such event ever recorded--set a global lower atmospheric temperature record that had been impossible to match until 2010.


Figure 1. Departure of temperature from average for 2010. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Earth's warmest temperatures in 2010, relative to average, occurred in western Greenland and eastern Canada, where record-duration sea ice loss contributed to temperatures that were 9°F (5°C) above average for the year (Figure 1.) The coolest temperatures, relative to average, were in central Siberia, 5.4°F (3°C) below average. In addition to being the warmest year on record globally, it was also the wettest (Figure 4.)


Figure 2. The latest rankings by NOAA of the hottest years globally since 1880. Earth's ten hottest years have all come since 1998, and the decade of the 2000s was by far the warmest decade in the historical record. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.


Figure 3. Global departure of temperature from average for 1880-2010, as computed by NASA.


Figure 4. Global departure of precipitation from average for 1900 - 2010. The year 2010 set a new record for wettest year in Earth's history. The difference in precipitation from average in 2010 was about 13% higher than that of the previous record wettest year, 1956. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

A record warm year during a deep solar minimum: an unusual occurrence
The 2010 record warmth was unusual in that it occurred during a period when energy from the sun was at its lowest levels since satellite measurements began in the 1970s. The 11-year sunspot cycle causes a 0.1% variation in the amount of energy reaching the Earth. White et al. (1997) found that sea surface temperatures varied by about 0.04 - 0.07°C on time scales of 11 - 22 years due to this change in solar energy, with temperatures lagging the sunspot cycle by 1.5 - 3 years (because the ocean is slow to heat up and cool down in response.) So, although solar activity began to pick up somewhat in 2010, the 1.5 - 3 year lag in ocean temperature response meant that the record low solar activity of 2008 - 2009 was what affected global temperatures in 2010. Given that the departure of Earth's temperature from average during 2010 was 0.62°C, this difference would have been perhaps 10% greater had we been 2 - 3 years past the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. The previous global temperature record, set in 2005, occurred 3 - 5 years after the twin-peaked previous solar cycle. It is very difficult to get a record warm year during a deep solar minimum, making the 2010 record one likely to be broken later this decade as the sun begins to exert a greater warming influence on the planet.


Figure 5. During 2008 - 2009, the energy from the sun arriving at the top of Earth's atmosphere (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI) as measured by satellites fell to its lowest value since satellite measurements began in 1978. Image credit: Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos World Radiation Center.

References
Skepticalscience.com has an in-depth discussion of Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Wunderground climate change blogger Dr. Ricky Rood has a comprehensive 5-part series on how the sun affects climate.

Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, 2010, "Solar Influences on Climate", Accepted in Rev. Geophys, 2010.

White, W.B., J. Lean, D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger (1997), Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3255-3266.

Thunderstorms hurl antimatter into space
NASA announced this week that mature thunderstorms can produce antimatter when exceptionally powerful lightning bolts occur. The antimattter beams were detected by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The amount of antimatter produced is tiny, though, and probably not enough to help power a starship.

"Cap'n, we're running low on antimatter to power the warp engines. Can you fly in low over those thunderstorms to replenish our reserves? We'll use the transporters to gather the antimatter and funnel it into the antimatter containment vessel."

"OK, Scotty!"

I'll have a new post on Tuesday.

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: 325 - 275

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Quoting hcubed:
It's just that posting photos 100 years ago compared to today will show changes in glaciers. Just as showing pictures from Times Square 100 years ago will show changes traffic density.

I suppose. And thank you for having the intellectual honesty to admit to the obvious correlation between increased fossil fuel usage (in Times Square and elsewhere) and those vanishing glaciers.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Yet we hang in the webs most consistently self moderated, motivated to science blog entry.

The Logic is stunning.

Fascinating a Vulcan said once
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:


No, that is not it at all.

The scientists are over-educated rubes in the middle of a crisis they unwittingly created and are now part of an aristocratic manipulation to extract untold billions from unsuspecting billions of people, in the guise of saving us from AGW.

Who was it that said 'Never let a good crisis go to waste?'

Hmmmm.

AGW..a crisis that shouldn't be wasted.




You are beginning to sound like Trotsky, Stalin and some 3rd world Union Leaders we have around here.
Be careful, people may start taking you seriously if you keep that up.
LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
pssssssssssssssst

Overview

The Glacier Photograph Collection is an online, searchable collection of photographs of glaciers, mostly taken in the Rocky Mountains, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and Greenland. Photographs were taken from both the air and the ground. The dates of the photographs range from the mid 1800s to the present day. As of June 2010, more than 13,000 glacier photographs are online. These photographs constitute an important historical record, as well as a data collection of interest to those studying the response of glaciers to climate change.


Search the Glacier Photograph Collection

You can search the Glacier Photograph Collection by glacier name, location, date, photographer, and more from the Search & Order interface. You can view lower-resolution photographs online and order high-resolution photographs from the interface.




Thanks, Patrap. Will have to look through those images.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I hope you are not including Dr. Masters.


Quoting calusakat:


No, that is not it at all.

The scientists we are talking about are over-educated rubes in the middle of a crisis they unwittingly created and who are now part of an aristocratic manipulation to extract untold billions from unsuspecting billions of people, in the guise of saving us from AGW.

Who was it that said 'Never let a good crisis go to waste?'

Hmmmm.

AGW..a crisis that shouldn't be wasted.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:
LOL, was he a Met?

Manmade Global Warming: The Solution
Pat Sajak · Jul. 25 at 11:49am

Manmade global warming, like so many other social and economic issues, has become hopelessly politicized. Each side has dug in its heels and has accused the other of acting irresponsibly and dishonestly. For the believers, the other side has become the equivalent of Holocaust deniers; and for the doubters, the other side has become a cult intent on manipulating mankind to remake the world in some sort of natural Utopian image.

The divide has become so great, it seems virtually impossible to bridge the gap. However, I’m not writing for Ricochet merely to outline problems; I’m here to offer real solutions. And I’m not just blowing carbon dioxide.

Let’s assume that a third of the world’s population really believes mankind has the power to adjust the Earth’s thermostat through lifestyle decisions. The percentage may be higher or lower, but, for the sake of this exercise, let’s put it at one-third. Now it seems to me these people have a special obligation to change their lives dramatically because they truly believe catastrophe lies ahead if they don’t. The other two-thirds are merely ignorant, so they can hardly be blamed for their actions.

Now, if those True Believers would give up their cars and big homes and truly change the way they live, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some measurable impact on the Earth in just a few short years. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles, but truly simplifying their lives. Even if you were, say, a former Vice President, you would give up extra homes and jets and limos. I see communes with organic farms and lives freed from polluting technology.

Then, when the rest of us saw the results of their actions—you know, the earth cooling, oceans lowering, polar bears frolicking and glaciers growing—we would see the error of our ways and join the crusade voluntarily and enthusiastically.

How about it? Why wait for governments to change us? You who have already seen the light have it within your grasp to act in concert with each other and change the world forever. And I hate to be a scold, but you have a special obligation to do it because you believe it so strongly. Then, instead of looking at isolated tree rings and computer models, you’d have real results to point to, and even the skeptics would see the error of their ways and join you.

So start Tweeting each other and get the ball rolling. We’ll anxiously await results. See, I told you I had the solution. My work here is done.


More from Pat Sajak

A TV game show host? Seriously?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
..snicker,



ack..


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chicklit:
hcubed, that is a very weak argument.
Just because no one has the sorts of records we keep today doesn't mean we don't have other ways of understanding conditions hundreds and even thousands, maybe millions of years ago.
Although for some people the earth was created in 6 days and that happened uh when?


Oh, I understand, all right.

I understand that scientists have gone out, done the hard work, gathered the data, wrote the papers, gotten the peer review, got published in journals, only to have a certain group of individuals have a say as to whether their degree is correct, if it's a proper journal, or if they make comments on the right websites.

And, if someone had come on here with a couple of pictures showing glacier increase, what arguments would that start?

It's just that posting photos 100 years ago compared to today will show changes in glaciers. Just as showing pictures from Times Square 100 years ago will show changes traffic density.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Here is some.

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/background.html


Interesting, and it helps to illustrate what we've been saying about the speed of change: it took that continental ice sheet several thousands of years to retreat a few hundred miles--while the images I showed exhibited retreat of dozens of miles in just a handful of decades.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
pssssssssssssssst

Overview

The Glacier Photograph Collection is an online, searchable collection of photographs of glaciers, mostly taken in the Rocky Mountains, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and Greenland. Photographs were taken from both the air and the ground. The dates of the photographs range from the mid 1800s to the present day. As of June 2010, more than 13,000 glacier photographs are online. These photographs constitute an important historical record, as well as a data collection of interest to those studying the response of glaciers to climate change.


Search the Glacier Photograph Collection

You can search the Glacier Photograph Collection by glacier name, location, date, photographer, and more from the Search & Order interface. You can view lower-resolution photographs online and order high-resolution photographs from the interface.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chicklit:
The argument is that scientists are part of a huge plot to prove global warming because they all want funding is like saying doctors diagnose cancer because they want to treat patients. Doctors are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat cancer. They didn't create it. Good grief.


No, that is not it at all.

The scientists we are talking about are over-educated rubes in the middle of a crisis they unwittingly created and who are now part of an aristocratic manipulation to extract untold billions from unsuspecting billions of people, in the guise of saving us from AGW.

Who was it that said 'Never let a good crisis go to waste?'

Hmmmm.

AGW..a crisis that shouldn't be wasted.



Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
LOL, was he a Met?

Manmade Global Warming: The Solution
Pat Sajak · Jul. 25 at 11:49am

Manmade global warming, like so many other social and economic issues, has become hopelessly politicized. Each side has dug in its heels and has accused the other of acting irresponsibly and dishonestly. For the believers, the other side has become the equivalent of Holocaust deniers; and for the doubters, the other side has become a cult intent on manipulating mankind to remake the world in some sort of natural Utopian image.

The divide has become so great, it seems virtually impossible to bridge the gap. However, I’m not writing for Ricochet merely to outline problems; I’m here to offer real solutions. And I’m not just blowing carbon dioxide.

Let’s assume that a third of the world’s population really believes mankind has the power to adjust the Earth’s thermostat through lifestyle decisions. The percentage may be higher or lower, but, for the sake of this exercise, let’s put it at one-third. Now it seems to me these people have a special obligation to change their lives dramatically because they truly believe catastrophe lies ahead if they don’t. The other two-thirds are merely ignorant, so they can hardly be blamed for their actions.

Now, if those True Believers would give up their cars and big homes and truly change the way they live, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some measurable impact on the Earth in just a few short years. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles, but truly simplifying their lives. Even if you were, say, a former Vice President, you would give up extra homes and jets and limos. I see communes with organic farms and lives freed from polluting technology.

Then, when the rest of us saw the results of their actions—you know, the earth cooling, oceans lowering, polar bears frolicking and glaciers growing—we would see the error of our ways and join the crusade voluntarily and enthusiastically.

How about it? Why wait for governments to change us? You who have already seen the light have it within your grasp to act in concert with each other and change the world forever. And I hate to be a scold, but you have a special obligation to do it because you believe it so strongly. Then, instead of looking at isolated tree rings and computer models, you’d have real results to point to, and even the skeptics would see the error of their ways and join you.

So start Tweeting each other and get the ball rolling. We’ll anxiously await results. See, I told you I had the solution. My work here is done.


More from Pat Sajak
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
303---those are not pictures of glaciers in the 1800s.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The argument that scientists are part of a huge plot to prove global warming because they all want funding is like saying doctors diagnose cancer because they want to treat patients. Doctors are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat cancer. They didn't create it. Good grief and good night.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
..the Mayans will be Looking for their Gold and the Oil.

Im gonna point at BP
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
oh no, the zodiac signs changed, the world is going to burst into flames at any moment, and if it doesnt, it's gonna end in 2012 anyway. what will we ever do


have a good night guys
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Here is some.

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/background.html


And how long did that take - the melting of that Ice Sheet (BTW) that was at uniform elevation?


Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting Chicklit:
Dr. Masters has mentioned in several of his posts and interviews that the reason for the Brazil floods and the Australian floods is due to the very warm sea surface temperatures. His current blog says we've had a second record breaking hot year in 2010.
The reason for the warming is traced back to pollution, specifically fossil fuels, primarily oil.
The governments who supply us with this fuels for the most part want us all dead.
What better way than to just keep selling us the stuff and encouraging us to use it indiscriminately?


Government wanting us all dead?

What rock did you crawl out from under?

Government wants us alive so that we can pay homage to them with our taxes. Wanting us dead is that very last thing on their pea sized brains.

First thing you need to do is sell all of your computers. They waste a bunch of energy and that means those evil oil companies getting richer and pollution and making those evil governments want you dead more than ever.

Times a wasting!

Better get a listing with Craigslist right away!

Do it tonight!

Not a minute to spare!

Hurry hurry hurry !!


Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Dr. Masters cites references in all of his blogs:
References
Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, 2010, "Solar Influences on Climate", Accepted in Rev. Geophys, 2010.

White, W.B., J. Lean, D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger (1997), Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3255-3266.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hcubed:


Too bad http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/background.htmlthere's no pictures of those glaciers during the 1800's.

Probably would have seen some change there, too.


Here is some.

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/background.html

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:



Why dont you look it up. Seriously why are you so sorry with legitimate references and then run in here with every ridiculous blog post some crack pot posts waving it around like it is gospel from the mountain.

START here:


Peer review




Not the point - or the question.

I know what peer review is.

The Lancet is peer reviewed. But not useful for climate science.

The IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering is peer reviewed. Not useful for climate science.

Question again, then. What journals are generally considered "acceptable" when discussing climate science?

Really, it's ok if you don't know. Maybe someone else does.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hcubed:


Too bad there's no pictures of those glaciers during the 1800's.

Probably would have seen some change there, too.

Silly post.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
hcubed, that is a very weak argument.
Just because no one has the sorts of records we keep today doesn't mean we don't have other ways of understanding conditions hundreds and even thousands, maybe millions of years ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting washingtonian115:
That map shows the percipitation amount in the tropics.The bluer the more percipitation,the redder the drier.

Oh!! (Duh!!!)
Thanks for that.
Back to look at them again....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Um they are glaciers - the ice in them has been analyzed back thousands of years. Get a clue.

What do you think "glacer" means

jheeeezzz. And you are the one questioning the legitimacy of peer review? This is absurd.

Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting hcubed:


Too bad there's no pictures of those glaciers during the 1800's.

Probably would have seen some change there, too.

Almost certainly; there would have been even more ice. The terminal ends of those glaciers in their "before" photos show ice many hundreds or even thousands of years old. Pretty amazing--and disturbing, at least to me--just how rapidly a massive chunk of ice hundreds of feet thick, thousands of feet wide, and miles long can simply vanish into nothingness...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
Dr. Masters has mentioned in several of his posts and interviews that the reason for the Brazil floods and the Australian floods is due to the very warm sea surface temperatures. His current blog says we've had a second record breaking hot year in 2010.
The reason for the warming is traced back to pollution, specifically fossil fuels, primarily oil.
The governments who supply us with this fuels for the most part want us all dead.
What better way than to just keep selling us the stuff and encouraging us to use it indiscriminately?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well, since the GW "debate" has fired up again; and, I noticed someone mentioned that people are set in their ways; I figured I would offer up my 2 cents for the night:

About 2/3rds of the population will always, always believe and do whatever someone in authority tells them. Who they see as the authority will depend on their social identity. They do not care about how the world works or why, only that it does. Rules in and of themselves are good and fair.

Most of the rest will go with the flow just to avoid rocking the boat. They may attempt to change things gradually or mitigate losses at the very least. But, they will always do so while working within the previously mentioned leadership framework, and will be largely ineffective. To change broken rules, one must work within the existing ones.

The remaining few are split between analytical people and leaders. Leaders that do not pay homage to the established leadership are branded as criminals. Although, there is often very little difference between the classifications outside of circumstance and impulse control issues. Rules are decrees of authority, something lower people abide by.

So, for what it's worth. There are people out there that are actually interested in how the world works. Chances are, you don't like them. ...not if they are honest with you at least. And, since they aren't "part of the team," much of any team really, it makes them easy targets for leaders the profit from ignorance instead of merit. You can convince these people if you provide them with the information in a format they can swallow. But, usually they are persecuted by people that just want to beat them until they shut up, get back in the line, and start towing. Confront the persecutors about it, and they claim to be teaching the recipients the truth, more like "teaching them a lesson" instead of "why or why not." Rules are merely artificial constructs for organizing people and guiding them towards achieving goals.

So, yes, there are people in this world that do have a strong enough sense of self to think for themselves to some crippled extent. They are rare, and sometimes driven half mad thanks to near continuous rejection of their actual selves. But, they do exist.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
I can't help but wonder whether and when the following glaciers will start re-growing with the onset of the coming period of magic global cooling wished for predicted by some contrarians.

Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Too bad there's no pictures of those glaciers during the 1800's.

Probably would have seen some change there, too.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
I dont understand the graphic.....
That map shows the percipitation amount in the tropics.The bluer the more percipitation,the redder the drier.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 17599
Quoting hcubed:


I'm still waiting for someone to post a list of degrees that they WILL accept as appropriate for "climate science" scientists.

And a list of the "peer-reviewed" journals they'll accept.

I know there's one out there, they keep referring back to it...



Why dont you look it up. Seriously why are you so sorry with legitimate references and then run in here with every ridiculous blog post some crack pot posts waving it around like it is gospel from the mountain.

START here:


Peer review


Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Neapolitan, I'm afraid that the deniers will say that they aren't satellite photos, they don't count ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:
But calusakat it feels good to be right here ;)


Absolutely . :-)


Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting HaloReachFan:


I didn't ask for the real definition of it.


Oh, sorry to over-inform you. I'll go back and delete that part ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
But calusakat it feels good to be right here ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm still waiting for a paper by a climatologist or meteorologist that disproves anthropogenic global warming. I see a lot of weaving back and forth, huffing and puffing from the denier side. But nothing else.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:


Halo...you are arguing with a fool...

and getting real close to making it so he is arguing with one as well.

He obviously doesn't have the education sufficient to provide coherent counter-point to the various presentations before him so he simply does what is left to him.

Doing whatever it takes to silence the opposition.




Sorry I got carried away thanks for bringing me out of that slump I was getting into phew time to take a breathe arguing with these people is stressful enough.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
I said Douglass is neither a climatologist nor a meteorologist. Which is accurate.


But you said Douglass was this...

Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
I said Loehle had studied foresty. And David H. Douglass is climatologist for Arizona, but he got his degree in astronomy and physics, not

Which was a political appointment---he got his degree in neither climatology or meteorology.


Which he isn't
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Actually all my points did. I pointed you out as a liar ;)

Number 270 is the greatest example.


Halo...you are arguing with a fool...

and getting real close to making it so he is arguing with one as well.

He obviously doesn't have the education sufficient to provide coherent counter-point to the various presentations before him so he simply does what is left to him.

Doing whatever it takes to silence the opposition.


Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
283. JRRP
Quoting xcool:




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting washingtonian115:
Thanks for posting that.If that's correct then it looks like we could have another strong cape verde season.
I dont understand the graphic.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KoritheMan:


Which is why I wish there were better ways for us to predict synoptic scale steering. That's far more important than numbers.
Good exsamples of this are 2004.It was less in the way of the number of storms but the destruction is what made it the most memberable season.And a better exsample is 1992.Even though 2010 was active it won't be as rememberable as 2004 since less storms impacted the U.S.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 17599
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Ossqss it's not me who posted a list of "850 papers skeptical of global warming"--a list of papers primarily NOT by climatologists or meteorologists. You can't fault me for examining your list, and finding it misleading.

I'm sure there are some papers by meteorologists or climatologists hiding somewhere in that list you put up. But most of it is dreck. Papers by people not in the fields of climatology or meteorology.

Were you hoping that no one would examine your list?


I'm still waiting for someone to post a list of degrees that they WILL accept as appropriate for "climate science" scientists. There are some who think meteorologists should be included.

And I'd also like to see a list of the "peer-reviewed" journals they'll accept.

I know there's one out there, they keep referring back to it...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I said Douglass is neither a climatologist nor a meteorologist. Which is accurate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Excellent photos Neapolitan!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Not a lie. And personal attacks are unbecoming. He is neither a meteorologist nor a climatologist.



Don't lie. I'm not personally attacking you you said David Douglass did things he never did I just corrected you and said you lied which is true. You did lie to people on this blog.

A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I can't help but wonder whether and when the following glaciers will start re-growing with the onset of the coming period of magic global cooling wished for predicted by some contrarians.

Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
Quoting xcool:



Thanks for posting that.If that's correct then it looks like we could have another strong cape verde season.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 17599

Viewing: 325 - 275

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog 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

Light Rain
46 °F
Light Rain