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: 775 - 725

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

775. Poptech
2:12 AM GMT on January 19, 2011
Quoting FFtrombi:


One example is the *850 articles refuting AGW someone pointed to earlier. Reading a random sample of those articles, all the ones I read actually weren't pro or anti AGW, they were just about a precise issue, sometimes not relating to bigger climate issues. In fact some of them would be classified as quite pro AGW if you read past the first sentence of the abstract.

That is because the list is anti-AGW Alarm which is stated explicitly in the title,

"850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm"

Thus various papers "support skepticism of the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW."
Member Since: January 17, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 6
774. Poptech
1:57 AM GMT on January 19, 2011
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.

Nothing is misleading, you just falsely believe that all scientists who research the climate have either a climatology or meteorology degree. Many prominent alarmists have the same credentials of scientists who appear on the list,

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

Shall we ignore all the papers written by any of the above?
Member Since: January 17, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 6
773. washingtonian115
10:00 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


You'll notice I'm avoiding these same old arguments as well. Too counter-productive and aggravating. I wanna Florida snowstorm, till then.....Horsefeathers!
That's why I'm going to limit my post until at least we have a pre tropical or subtropical system that forms.Or until may 20th when most bloggers count down till hurricane season.Theirs suspose to be a snowstorm in my area,but I don't think I'll be talking about in here.The world has been brainwashed.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16411
771. DEKRE
3:02 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
New Blog
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
770. Neapolitan
2:47 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting calusakat:


Kinda like when you proclaim every serious weather event as proof of AGW.

Sure sounds like you are using the same argument for both sides.

Try something else for a change.

Might I suggest you try something that is, apparently, very foreign to you...the TRUTH?

Try it, you might like it.



My apologies, but I don't recall having done that--that is, as you say, "proclaim every serious weather event as proof of AGW". Can you please point back to the comment or blog post where I did that? If you can possibly do that, let me know so I can publicly apologize for making such an unfounded, unscientific statement. If, on the other hand, you're not able to, I'll be expecting both a retraction and an apology from you.

Deal?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
769. JRRP
2:46 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Link
But if this extreme weather was exceeded by similar conditions in 1974 how can it be claimed that global temperatures have increased dramatically and that the world's climate has reacted accordingly? Then they claim that climate is average weather. If this is so then how do they explain that the weather extremes have not increased during the past 40 years but global climate has worsened?
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5340
768. Patrap
2:27 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
The Truth as stated scientifically today..Via NOAA.

Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center



Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127559
767. Jax82
2:24 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting FSUCOOPman:


I don't mind Nea's stuff because he's much more open to debate and polished, but JFLORIDA, buddy, tone it down a bit, man... It's ok for people to disagree with your view. That's what sparks healthy debate. You seem to take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't agree with you, and then mud-slinging follows typically to the tune of how said person is ignorant or ignoring science...

If you want to sway someone's opinion, you're going about it the wrong way... At first, I listened to your posts, but your attitude on this blog, specifically, has completely turned me off to not only your posts, but even the whole AGW theory.

I work as a data analyst... It's VERY easy to take sets of data, publish charts and graphs, and then qualify the data in a manner to sway someone's opinion. Often, it's my job to take the same set of data and make it look like it says two completely opposite things. This concept alone, combined with all of the big money companies that stand to win or lose based on the outcome of these theories is enough for me to not buy in 100%.

I'm with the wait and see, but paying attention crowd.

Cheers



I'm a data analyst as well and a cartographer. I know first hand you can make a map lie even if the data is correct. Simply changing the range of numbers in a classification or adding more or less classes can dramatically change the way a map looks. And considering most look at a chart or map and believe it without even looking at the underlying data, its easy to fool a lot of people.
Member Since: September 2, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 1261
766. biff4ugo
2:21 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Good Morning,

3 relevant notes to Dr. Masters Blog.
1. The spectral output from the sun is not uniform and changes out of phase with the 11 year total maximum output. That is to say, the absorbed spectra that heat the water or lower atmosphere the most are not at the peak during the total solar maximum output.
2. Is the south pacific really at their "Z" storm already, or is that just the English spelling?
3. Did he say "wessils?"
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 114 Comments: 1547
765. calusakat
2:17 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
--the silliness and dishonesty of those who latch onto every snowstorm or cold snap as "proof" that the planet isn't warming--


Kinda like when you proclaim every serious weather event as proof of AGW.

Sure sounds like you are using the same argument for both sides.

Try something else for a change.

Might I suggest you try something that is, apparently, very foreign to you...the TRUTH?

Try it, you might like it.


Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
764. greentortuloni
2:16 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting FSUCOOPman:


I don't mind Nea's stuff because he's much more open to debate and polished, but JFLORIDA, buddy, tone it down a bit, man... It's ok for people to disagree with your view. That's what sparks healthy debate. You seem to take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't agree with you, and then mud-slinging follows typically to the tune of how said person is ignorant or ignoring science...

If you want to sway someone's opinion, you're going about it the wrong way... At first, I listened to your posts, but your attitude on this blog, specifically, has completely turned me off to not only your posts, but even the whole AGW theory.

I work as a data analyst... It's VERY easy to take sets of data, publish charts and graphs, and then qualify the data in a manner to sway someone's opinion. Often, it's my job to take the same set of data and make it look like it says two completely opposite things. This concept alone, combined with all of the big money companies that stand to win or lose based on the outcome of these theories is enough for me to not buy in 100%.

I'm with the wait and see, but paying attention crowd.

Cheers



I'm fascinated. Can you give more details about your job and what you do - without getting personal or getting you into trouble. I'm just really curious what kind of job does what you described.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
763. ShenValleyFlyFish
2:01 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting KrippleCreekFerry:
Nuclear power was being adopted here so enthusiastically and then completely abandoned for what, 30 years. The power companies were ready and willing to phase out coal and gas plants for nuclear but after the 3 mile ( which was contained, the system worked) and the Chernobyl disaster they were hounded to completely drop nuclear power development. We could be well on the way to implementing this proven, cheap, nonpolluting technology, instead of being in the mess we are in today.I predict nuclear will be back big time soon.Some of the same AGW proponents are strongly antinuke. The solution to their GW thing sits tested and ready to be adopted and big oil and coal keep fooling them. Go figure. They want us to return to 1800, then they'll be happy.
Not the whole story. Cost of nuk plants vrs coal fired had a lot to do with this. Then you have "deregulation" and lack of internalization of costs of pollution. Power companies are driven by the bottom line and were perfectly happy to stick with coal as long as it payed.
Member Since: September 9, 2007 Posts: 36 Comments: 4687
762. Grothar
2:01 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
It absolutely amazes me how well positive reinforcement works. It would appear there are bloggers who actually believe they are as smart as their parents and peers tell them they are.

I am glad the one lesson I learned well at an early age; no matter how smart one believes he is, there is always someone smarter.

What actually frightens me about the arrogance, is that one day, one of these people (or the like) may be operating on you or defending you in a court. Arrogance and bias have never been as useful as fairness and open-mindedness. The former can be dangerous.
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 69 Comments: 25369
761. FSUCOOPman
1:57 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting IKE:
***peaks in....see's GW posts by the same posters ...checks out***


I don't mind Nea's stuff because he's much more open to debate and polished, but JFLORIDA, buddy, tone it down a bit, man... It's ok for people to disagree with your view. That's what sparks healthy debate. You seem to take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't agree with you, and then mud-slinging follows typically to the tune of how said person is ignorant or ignoring science...

If you want to sway someone's opinion, you're going about it the wrong way... At first, I listened to your posts, but your attitude on this blog, specifically, has completely turned me off to not only your posts, but even the whole AGW theory.

I work as a data analyst... It's VERY easy to take sets of data, publish charts and graphs, and then qualify the data in a manner to sway someone's opinion. Often, it's my job to take the same set of data and make it look like it says two completely opposite things. This concept alone, combined with all of the big money companies that stand to win or lose based on the outcome of these theories is enough for me to not buy in 100%.

I'm with the wait and see, but paying attention crowd.

Cheers

Member Since: August 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 371
760. NttyGrtty
1:50 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Morn'n everyone. Coffee?
Member Since: February 11, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 826
759. Chicklit
1:40 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Joe Bastardi should stick to weight lifting.
Or perhaps professional wrestling would be a good match for him.
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11174
758. MagneticCrotchet
1:23 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
one storm after another for the north east... looks like broken record.
Member Since: May 18, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 25
756. Neapolitan
1:20 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Joe Bastardi said earlier this month that this January would be the coldest since 1985, that most of the country from coast to coast would spend the entire middle third of the month plunged into a deep-freeze. Many anti-GW sites picked up on this, trumpeting breathless headlines such as "What Global Warming?! U.S. to see Coldest Month in a Quarter-Century!"

Yet here we are on the 18th, with temps average to above average in most places (in the past 48 hours, there have been 118 record highs or high minimums and just four record lows), and unseasonably warm weather forecast for much of the country over at least the next week. Except for lobes of typically cold weather in the upper Midwest and extreme Northeast--it is January, after all--highs are expected to remain at or above normal pretty much everywhere.

I'm not at all saying this January thaw is "evidence" of overall warming. I'm not even suggesting it's unusual. What I'm doing is highlighting--again--the silliness and dishonesty of those who latch onto every snowstorm or cold snap as "proof" that the planet isn't warming--then refuse to acknowledge how wrong they were. (And, rabid denier though he is, I have to give JB props for making such a forecast. He's great at meteorology--it's climatology where he doesn't have much credibility.)

Ah, well. Here in Naples, the ten-day forecast says we'll be in the 70s all the way through the period. Sounds good to me... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
755. bappit
1:15 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting EnergyMoron:
Kansas songs

Better than the folks who posted videos... I can listen to videos and type this.

Nebraskans plant trees.... Kansas... bloody Kansas. Ask Grothar... he knows about the history of the Kansas/Nebraska act

The latest lyric was heaven waits... for you! (as opposed to "me").

"But I flew too high" (Icarus... folks from Kansas, and even Nebraska, can make allusions).

"And if i claim to be a wise man, it surely means that i don't know"

How nebraskan... i am a moron :)


Where was Kansas on the meter they had in Rock and Roll High School?
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5954
754. IndianaJohn
1:11 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Here at the south end of Lake Michigan, last summer and so far this winter there has been no unique weather or temperatures. Thunderstorms have increased a little after being nearly absent for a couple of years. Copy and paste the link below for something interesting.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110117rainmaker.htm
Member Since: June 26, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 8
753. PensacolaDoug
1:08 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting IKE:
***peaks in....see's GW posts by the same posters ...checks out***


You'll notice I'm avoiding these same old arguments as well. Too counter-productive and aggravating. I wanna Florida snowstorm, till then.....Horsefeathers!
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 551
752. PensacolaDoug
12:51 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting WaterWitch11:
A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage. Researchers point out that the potential scale of destruction in this storm scenario is four or five times the amount of damage that could be wrought by a major earthquake. It sounds like the plot of an apocalyptic action movie, but scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey warned federal and state emergency officials that California's geological history shows such "superstorms" have happened in the past, and should be added to the long list of natural disasters to worry about in the Golden State. The threat of a cataclysmic California storm has been dormant for the past 150 years. Geological Survey director Marcia K. McNutt told the New York Times that a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley was inundated from 1861-62. The floods were so bad that the state capital had to be moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford had to take a rowboat to his own inauguration, the report notes. Even larger storms happened in past centuries, over the dates 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605, according to geological evidence. The risk is gathering momentum now, scientists say, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile. The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes. Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release. Federal and state emergency management officials convened a conference about emergency preparations for possible superstorms last week. You can read the whole report here.



These storms happen every 250 years or so on average. So it doesn't take a genious or a math wiz to see it's been 150 years since the last one so the odds are improving that it will happen again...AGW or not.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 551
751. IKE
12:18 PM GMT on January 18, 2011
***peaks in....see's GW posts by the same posters ...checks out***
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
750. greentortuloni
11:48 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Regarding a few posts that ridiculed the idea that there will be/won't be any melt of the arctic ice, everyone can no put their money where their blog is at. Intrade is taking bets (uh, options) on arctic ice extent next summer.

I highly suggest that anyone who belittles the other side extremely should take up this wager or "be damned for a faintheart, sheltering behind your money and the [blog]."

[NB: as soon as I have time to figure out what my position is on this financially, I will partake.]
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
748. xcool
7:59 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
National Hurricane Center now on Facebook,

http://www.facebook.com/US.NOAA.NationalHurricaneCenter.gov?v=wall
Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15620
745. WaterWitch11
6:51 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage. Researchers point out that the potential scale of destruction in this storm scenario is four or five times the amount of damage that could be wrought by a major earthquake. It sounds like the plot of an apocalyptic action movie, but scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey warned federal and state emergency officials that California's geological history shows such "superstorms" have happened in the past, and should be added to the long list of natural disasters to worry about in the Golden State. The threat of a cataclysmic California storm has been dormant for the past 150 years. Geological Survey director Marcia K. McNutt told the New York Times that a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley was inundated from 1861-62. The floods were so bad that the state capital had to be moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford had to take a rowboat to his own inauguration, the report notes. Even larger storms happened in past centuries, over the dates 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605, according to geological evidence. The risk is gathering momentum now, scientists say, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile. The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes. Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release. Federal and state emergency management officials convened a conference about emergency preparations for possible superstorms last week. You can read the whole report here.
Member Since: August 11, 2008 Posts: 3 Comments: 1570
744. jpritch
6:07 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Obama and company says we are broke and can't pay out until February 15 at the earliest according to tax software.

Um....

Not paying debts immediately is a sign the US should be downgraded to junk status.... since it

WASTES ENERGY


It's not a funding issue. It's because just a couple of weeks ago, congress changed tax code that affects 2010 returns with itemized deductions. Now the IRS has to change all the forms, instructions, training, etc.
Member Since: June 28, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
743. EYEStoSEA
5:57 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting Skyepony:


0.79"


Not 3.67, but sure beats nothing :)
Member Since: September 16, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1492
741. EYEStoSEA
5:55 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting Jedkins01:


I had 3.67 inches of rain at my place in Central Florida, I got my much needed and very well appreciated rains today!



Now that is good news....3.67 is a lot of rain.
Member Since: September 16, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1492
740. Skyepony (Mod)
5:53 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting EYEStoSEA:
Just checking in to see if any of you Florida folks in the dry areas received that much needed rain ?


0.79"
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37353
739. Jedkins01
5:51 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting EYEStoSEA:
Just checking in to see if any of you Florida folks in the dry areas received that much needed rain ?


I had 3.67 inches of rain at my place in Central Florida, I got my much needed and very well appreciated rains today!

Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7281
738. EnergyMoron
5:46 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Kansas songs

Better than the folks who posted videos... I can listen to videos and type this.

Nebraskans plant trees.... Kansas... bloody Kansas. Ask Grothar... he knows about the history of the Kansas/Nebraska act

The latest lyric was heaven waits... for you! (as opposed to "me").

"But I flew too high" (Icarus... folks from Kansas, and even Nebraska, can make allusions).

"And if i claim to be a wise man, it surely means that i don't know"

How nebraskan... i am a moron :)

Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
737. tornadodude
5:45 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
howdy everyone,

does anyone know if i can be charger for using the "tether" app on my sprint blackberry?

thanks!
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
736. Jedkins01
5:43 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Nebraska ethics... go plant a tree.

This week was the Eastern Redbud... while waiting for weather dependent things, hopefully 2 Mexican plums go in the ground next week.

Learn from Nebraskans (how conservative are they?).

Trees are very good things.



lol don't worry, I'm not against trees, I love the woods. I am an outdoorsman/hunter and I do the best I can to support laws that protect the wilderness and preserve it. I do whatever I can to resist the greedy big business machine that loves to destroy nature in Florida just so filthy rich executives can make a few more million to add to their multimillion dollar empires. Its downright disgusting.

So for the record, I used tree hugging as a figure of speech, because I am certainly not against trees, I am a county boy, and I call the trees my home. I personally don't like the artificial urbanization that most of us modern people dwell in.


Heck if I lived in Nebraska, that's all I would do is plant trees, because they sure lack them! lol
Wide open planes are boring, the planet would be a lot more boring without trees.

I'm not actually a Conservative either by the way, I am a moderate, or a Neutral, because I believe liberalism is needed for changing law that is poor or needs improvement, as well as preserving nature. And I also believe Conservatism is needed to protect laws in this country that are good and have made the nation great.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7281
735. EYEStoSEA
5:40 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Just checking in to see if any of you Florida folks in the dry areas received that much needed rain ?
Member Since: September 16, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1492
734. sunlinepr
5:39 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL:
It may actually be possible to clone a dinosaur, to be specific, a T-rex (well, it is a bit more complicated than just finding cells and DNA):

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T. rex Fossil

Researchers report today in the journal Science that they have recovered soft tissue, including blood vessels, from the ancient creature.


Well, you can be sure they will find the way to clone one, maybe with a Comodo dragon... Like Keeper said, that will be an excellent ultimate weapon to release to an enemy... and any Defense department from any of the Big Global Bosses will most likely experiment with it....


Gnite All
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9695
733. Jedkins01
5:37 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting FFtrombi:
Honestly, whenever I read a site, either denial, or proGW and they type an article, I try and find out whether thats what impression an entire reading of the source gives (if and when they bother).

Quite often in the blogosphere, excitement about a polarized issue can get in the way of resourced knowledge, and thats a shame because there are some talented writers around.

One example is the *850 articles refuting AGW someone pointed to earlier. Reading a random sample of those articles, all the ones I read actually weren't pro or anti AGW, they were just about a precise issue, sometimes not relating to bigger climate issues. In fact some of them would be classified as quite pro AGW if you read past the first sentence of the abstract.

*disclaimer* Just so everyones clear on my biased background, I'm a closet environmentalist who thinks the carbon based economy is hurting the planet, a) by causing climate change, ie warming causing feedbacks like desertification / more extreme weather events and b) by pollution by the carbon industry (mining, oil, air pollution etc). I don't think life on this planet will end because of CO2 emissions, and I don't think some of the wilder projections will turn out correct, however, I would rather my government act now and save the billions it would take to act later.*


Hey, I guess I have more in common with environmentalists than I thought! lol
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7281
731. EnergyMoron
5:28 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Arbor Day started in Nebraska, didn't it?


Yup.

And they are the most conservative voting of folks.

Conservation is conservative.... from a Nebraskan
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
730. EnergyMoron
5:27 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
I guess we'll find out how mammoths smell. Probably not worse than an elephant.


We discussed this at dinner. My Chinese ethnic children have been to the zoo quite a bit and the topic of elephant did come up.
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
728. sunlinepr
5:25 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Latest human cloning claims leave sour taste

* 13:35 22 April 2009 by Andy Coghlan

It's clone-mania again, for the second time in just a few weeks. This time, it's fertility expert Panayiotis Zavos, founder of the private Zavos Organization in Lexington, Kentucky, claiming that he made 14 human cloned embryos and transferred 11 of them into the wombs of women.

None of the embryos survived this time (allegedly), but "the cloned child is coming", Zavos told The Independent newspaper in the UK. "There is absolutely no way that it will not happen."

The New Scientst Link
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9695
727. EnergyMoron
5:25 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting Jedkins01:


go hug a dang tree.

Personally, I like to defend my family and friends against the wicked.


Nebraska ethics... go plant a tree.

This week was the Eastern Redbud... while waiting for weather dependent things, hopefully 2 Mexican plums go in the ground next week.

Learn from Nebraskans (how conservative are they?).

Trees are very good things.
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
725. Jedkins01
5:22 AM GMT on January 18, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

I'm going to ignore this ignorant, racist, and utterly bigoted piece of moronic white supremacist garbage, and its author as well. I hope everyone else does the same.
Quoting Levi32:


Are you sure you are willing to make that statement? What about the fact that we still don't fully understand clouds, much less having the ability to correctly model them? What about the fact that we don't yet fully understand some of the most significant modulators of global climate such as the polar annular modes, and stratospheric/mesospheric processes that are still under study and have limited observation?


I'm glad I can consider you, someone that I uphold for being very smart, but yet not arrogant and full of yourself, because you don't portray human understanding for science like we are God.

That's a rare feat these days!
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7281

Viewing: 775 - 725

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

Scattered Clouds
78 °F
Scattered Clouds