4 out of 5 Americans affected by weather-related disasters since 2006, study finds

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:55 PM GMT on February 20, 2012

Share this Blog
37
+

Since 2006 , federally declared weather-related disasters in the United States have affected counties housing 242 million people--or roughly four out of five Americans. That's the remarkable finding of Environment America, who last week released a detailed report on extreme weather events in the U.S. The report analyzed FEMA data to study the number of federally declared weather-related disasters. More than 15 million Americans live in counties that have averaged one or more weather-related disasters per year since the beginning of 2006. Ten U.S. counties--six in Oklahoma, two in Nebraska, and one each in Missouri and South Dakota--have each experienced ten or more declared weather-related disasters since 2006. South Carolina was the only state without a weather-related disaster since 2006. The report did a nice job explaining the linkages between extreme weather events and climate change, and concluded, "The increasing evidence linking global warming to certain types of extreme weather events--underscored by the degree to which those events are already both a common and an extremely disruptive fact of life in the United States--suggests that the nation should take the steps needed now to prevent the worst impacts of global warming and to prepare for the changes that are inevitably coming down the road."




Figure 1. County-level map of federally-declared weather-related disasters between 2006 - 2011. Tornadoes and severe thunderstorms in the Midwest, and heavy rains and snows from Nor'easters, hurricanes, and other storms in the Northeast gave those two regions the most disaster declarations. An interactive version of this map that allows one to click and see the individual disasters by county is on the Environment America website.

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: 641 - 591

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 | 25Blog Index

641. TomTaylor
12:00 AM GMT on February 22, 2012
Quoting weatherh98:


Bush had 8 years to add slightly more than 5 trillion, obama has had about 3 and has added slightly under 5 trillion big difference in the rates
Yeah I mentioned that. I also mentioned that large portion of the debt Obama added was to help revive the economic which fell into a recession under President Bush. I think we can all agree that Obama's 787 billion dollar stimulus package would have been completely unnecessary had our economy been in better shape.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
640. PensacolaDoug
12:00 AM GMT on February 22, 2012
Quoting TomTaylor:
Yeah, I'd say it's safe to say some people never learn proper grammar either, wouldn't you, SPL? lolz


Some people use the word "granite" when they really mean "granted".
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 564
639. weatherh98
11:50 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting TomTaylor:
False. When Obama took office, the federal debt was at 10.626 trillion, it's now around 15.4 trillion. So he has added just under 5 trillion, whereas Bush added just over 5 trillion dollars to the national debt. Granite Obama added this debt in a far shorter time, but one must remember that a large portion of the debt Obama has added was due to the enormous amount of spending required to revive our economy which fell into a recession under Bush's watch.


Bush had 8 years to add slightly more than 5 trillion, obama has had about 3 and has added slightly under 5 trillion big difference in the rates
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6495
638. VAbeachhurricanes
11:49 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:


No, it's not.

A normalized supply/demand curve presents with demand going down as supply goes up.

Look around. Your energy company has you by the balls. Either you pay the bill, or it gets cut, you don't really have much of an option,since most of the price is things you do anyway: cooking, hot water for bathing, washing clothes.

Same thing with Gasoline. You have to drive to work and grocery no matter what anyway right? So the price doesn't effect those decisions at all. Either you buy it or you're screwed.

That doesn't fit a supply/demand curve at all.


Gas and Electricity are maybe the most inelastic things on the market. I don't know how you release the grip since the start up costs for those businesses are astronomical.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6506
637. VAbeachhurricanes
11:47 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
I never realized that borrowing 15 trillion dollars with no plan to pay it back is a good thing. Guess I don't know anything.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6506
636. j2008
11:46 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:
Gosh stop reminding me that I have to do my Econ homework still.
Member Since: December 19, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 224
635. yqt1001
11:46 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
.
Member Since: November 19, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 1286
634. weatherh98
11:44 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting PlazaRed:

I would sort of agree with you on that but there is another way to look at it.
When you reach the top of an hill, the only way to go is down. You are not in a position to evolve and fly up and off it as you will starve to death waiting for the evolution.
A man told me a long time ago that the Chinese leader said:- A hunger man will stand on top of a hill for a long time with his mouth open waiting for a roast chicken to fly into it.( I might have got that slightly wrong!)
The economy is bad because its a quandary; spending limitless cash will solve it but there is not limitless cash. Not spending enough cash will lead to depression.The 2 sides of the argument are easy to understand but you have to accept that the government is the fulcrum of balance.


That sounded Beautiful
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6495
633. RTSplayer
11:38 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting TomTaylor:

Okay so in your last post you said it isn't a supply and demand thing, and now you are saying it is a basic necessity. In other words, it is a demand. So now you are contradicting yourself. If that energy demand (or necessity as you put it) suddenly disappeared, so would the monopoly. So it is a supply and demand situation.


No, it's not.

A normalized supply/demand curve presents with demand going down as supply goes up.

Look around. Your energy company has you by the balls. Either you pay the bill, or it gets cut, you don't really have much of an option,since most of the price is things you do anyway: cooking, hot water for bathing, washing clothes.

Same thing with Gasoline. You have to drive to work and grocery no matter what anyway right? So the price doesn't effect those decisions at all. Either you buy it or you're screwed.

That doesn't fit a supply/demand curve at all.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
632. yqt1001
11:36 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting TomTaylor:
Yeah, I'd say it's safe to say some people never learn proper grammar either, wouldn't you, SPL? lolz


Some people also learn how to not make a run-on sentence and to use commas properly.

Not trying to be picky or anything. Your grammar is much better than some others, probably even mine. :P
Member Since: November 19, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 1286
631. WxGeekVA
11:30 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting TomTaylor:
Hm, well it looks like you'd be geting some snow on that run, although I'm not really sure which part of Virginia you reside in.


Northern, near DC
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3471
630. TomTaylor
11:26 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting WxGeekVA:


I know but... I'm desperate for snow!
Hm, well it looks like you'd be geting some snow on that run, although I'm not really sure which part of Virginia you reside in.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
629. TomTaylor
11:23 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting SPLbeater:


some never learn how to talk weather, just argue bout politics. :D
Yeah, I'd say it's safe to say some people never learn proper grammar either, wouldn't you, SPL? lolz
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
628. bappit
11:22 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting hydrus:
What a massive jet stream..

Yup, a veritable atmospheric river carrying heat from the tropics to the poles--well, in that direction.

Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6032
627. WxGeekVA
11:22 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting TomTaylor:
things usually start to get interesting that far out in time lol...especially on the 6z and 18z runs.


I know but... I'm desperate for snow!
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3471
626. SPLbeater
11:17 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting WxGeekVA:
Meanwhile in the non-economy/political/religious world, interesting scenario on the 18Z GFS 204 hours out:



some never learn how to talk weather, just argue bout politics. :D
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4485
625. TomTaylor
11:17 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting WxGeekVA:
Meanwhile in the non-economy/political/religious world, interesting scenario on the 18Z GFS 204 hours out:

things usually start to get interesting that far out in time lol...especially on the 6z and 18z runs.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
624. WxGeekVA
11:10 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Meanwhile in the non-economy/political/religious world, interesting scenario on the 18Z GFS 204 hours out:

Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3471
623. misanthrope
11:08 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting runningfromthestorms:
Misanthrope - we didn't enter WWII to help the oppressed we entered because Japan bombed us and their ally, Germany, declared war on us as well...we turned our backs on the suffering in Europe until then...and as for why our economy rebounded after WWII, we were the only manufacturing country left standing...Germany, England, Japan, France, etc...all were in shambles...we had a world monopoly...


First, I don't recall making any comment as to why the United States entered the war, I only commented on the outcome. Second, the Great Depression was long gone by the time the war ended. If you don't believe me, you might want to check on GDP and employment statistics during the war years. As to economic growth after the war; there were lots of factors including the GI Bill and the Marshall Plan (paid for with borrowed money, I do believe). The fact that significant growth did occur in the US during post-war years - when US government debt was much higher, relative to GDP, than it it is today - seems to give lie to claims that federal debt is dragging down today's economy.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
622. TomTaylor
10:56 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:


Energy is basic necessity for all other goods.

Because of this, energy demand is automatic, which is why the seller can set any price they like and will get it, particularly when there is no competition.

Okay so in your last post you said it isn't a supply and demand thing, and now you are saying it is a basic necessity. In other words, it is a demand. So now you are contradicting yourself. If that energy demand (or necessity as you put it) suddenly disappeared, so would the monopoly. So it is a supply and demand situation.


Anyway, back to this post...If you set prices too high, you will get competition. Furthermore, you seem to be blurring oil companies and energy companies together as one when really there are many forms of alternative energy out there. For this reason, as oil becomes too expensive, people seek out alternative sources like riding bikes, staying home for vacations, or buying solar panels for their roof tops.


I agree with you these monopolies have the majority of the control, but they do not have all the power and they can not raise the price to whatever they like (as you clearly stated in the bold). Gas prices would never reach $1,000 dollars per gallon, not even $100 per gallon. Oil will only be extracted for as long as it is more profitable than other sources of energy. Once those reserves start running low and technology makes alternate forms cheaper, oil will begin to fade. That could be a while before that happens though.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
621. uncwhurricane85
10:53 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting OracleDeAtlantis:
That's what I thought too, but if you do a careful search, apparently no "Major Disaster" declarations were made since late January of '06.

Fascinating map and statistic, given they are literally surrounded:



Arguably the most conservative state in the union, and heavily Christian, I could speculate that perhaps she might have the highest church attendance rate in the nation. However, that would be wrong, and here are two Gallup Poll references showing this fact, in 2006, and in 2010.

So what could be responsible for this apparent Divine providence?

Eliminating church attendance as a prime factor(i.e. Mississippi & Alabama,) very few possibilities come to mind; but luck is one of course.

As South Carolinian's wrestle with this curious statistic, my mind cannot help but wander to the word "miracle."

Congratulations South Carolina, either you're housing a saint, a collection of them, or .... I wonder.


no people made this map which is pobably not correct, and people in south carolina and surrounding areas fix things on their own and dont rely on govt pigs for help!!!!!!
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 572
620. Xyrus2000
10:48 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Gleick did one thing wrong. He used a false name to trick Heartland into sending him private information.

The "Climategate" perps did two things wrong. First, they hacked the university email system and stole emails. Second, they took bits and pieces of those emails out of context and created lies about the behavior of climate science.

The Heartland Institute actively participated in the Climategate lies. They even continue to claim that the stolen emails demonstrate some sort of scientific misconduct long after a half dozen high level investigations have determined that climate scientists did nothing wrong. They continue to lie.

Does the behavior of the email thieves and the Heartland Institute liars excuse Gleick's behavior?

Of course not.

But Gleick's behavior does not negate what the Heartland Institute has done either.

You can bet that Heartland is going to pump up the noise about what Gleick did in order to divert attention from themselves. While not overlooking Gleick, let's remember who both stole and lied.

And remember who is trying to keep us from preventing runaway climate change.



The ends do not justify the means. Despite having good intentions and whatever good may follow from his actions, it was not the best decision. By pulling a stunt like this he has given ammunition to detractors and a means for deniers and the like to keep the subject safely away from the science. He will also be subject to a lot more scrutiny ("He did this, so what else is he capable of?"). This will not only come from the public side, but also the academic side.

The long term consequences of this action are unknown, and it remains to be seen whether it will be an overall good thing or a bad thing when it comes to climate science. My thinking on the subject is that this is a short term gain with a long term loss, as now the deniosphere has "vindication" for their various conspiracies (or at least, that is how they will spin it). It won't matter that the docs actually show active FUD campaigns or who is on the take for pushing anti-science rhetoric. The HI docs could show them kicking puppies and eating babies. It won't matter. The simple fact that a climate proponent did something dishonest will be used to paint the entire community (and thus all the science) in the same color.

This right here demonstrates why scientists should not sink to the same level as groups like HI, Fox News, etc. . By doing so, all you do is give them additional fuel to burn you with. Once you leave the realm of hard facts and science, they can obliterate you with logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, and empty rhetoric. They will win too because they are much better at it (they've had lots of practice) and have a much larger PR budget.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
619. TomTaylor
10:48 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Oh really? How do they even know that? Obama has raised our debt 7.6 trillion dollars in a little more than 3 years, that is sound economic spending? How about Jimmy Carter's economy? That almost had a misery rate of 20? Wish we could have maintained that... not.
False. When Obama took office, the federal debt was at 10.626 trillion, it's now around 15.4 trillion. So he has added just under 5 trillion, whereas Bush added just over 5 trillion dollars to the national debt. Granted Obama added this debt in a far shorter time, but one must remember that a large portion of the debt Obama has added was due to the enormous amount of spending required to revive our economy which fell into a recession under Bush's watch.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
618. SPLbeater
10:47 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
ok i back:)
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4485
617. Guysgal
10:43 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
It was FDR's stimulus programs and regulating Wall Street that ended the Great Depression!! But when the stimulus was withdrawn prematurely by naysayers we went back into the Depression in the late 1930s and it was only WWII that finally ended it.
The economy was very rocky in the late 1940s after all the GIs returned so all the women and African-Americans were excluded from the workforce once more to make jobs for the white men. Then cheap oil was discovered and the economy boomed ala Mad Men until the mid-1960s. Sadly when LBJ tried to provide both guns and butter (maintain the War in southeast Asia and provide social programs for the Great Society) runaway inflation reared its ugly head.
By 1973, we had run through all our domestic oil and started importing foreign. That began to prove a finite supply by 1979 and then we had to compete with the rest of the world and the economy went off a cliff from which it has never recovered. Then the country had to embrace Gordon Gekko and his ilk as we no longer really manufactured anything or had cheap energy. The oligarchs began to use wealth to manipulate democracy and create the disparity fo wealth that continues today.
Which kinda brings us up to the present which is a diminishing oil supply, AGW from burning all those irreplaceable fossil fuels, 7 billion folks on the planet with hungry mouths, and the U.S. has bought into a way of life that is unsustainable. Furthermore, all our current wars only benefit the oligarchs not the working class citizens of this or any other country.
Member Since: May 9, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 218
616. RTSplayer
10:41 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting TomTaylor:
Monopolies do have a lot of control, but they do not hold all the power and supply and demand still applies. Do you honestly think those monopolies would even exist if there was no demand for their product?


Energy is basic necessity for all other goods.

Because of this, energy demand is automatic, which is why the seller can set any price they like and will get it, particularly when there is no competition.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
615. hydrus
10:38 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
What a massive jet stream..
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 21249
614. IceCoast
10:35 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
If anyone wants to talk winter, I found it interesting that yesterday Steamboat Springs, CO reported 27inches of new snow in 24 hours when they were only under a Winter Weather Advisory calling for 6-12". This broke there all time 24hr record. It's snowed at least another foot since yesterday bringing the 48hr total to 40" with heavy snow still falling looking at webcams. (Steamboat Cams Link)

Now the real interesting part is other mountains on the western slope such as Vail/Beaver Creek only reported ~4", Aspen ~7", and a snotel site on buff pass under 10 miles away, and in a location that usually gets more snow then the ski resort only reported 8-10 inches last night.
Tower 825 snow depth past 7 days Link

I'm really curious to how there is such a drastic difference. I'm familiar with mountain snowfall and how orographic uplift can be a huge player on what slopes the snow falls, but this just seems kind of crazy!


Member Since: October 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1267
613. TomTaylor
10:30 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:


It's because "free markets" and the "Invisible hand" are anything but "free".

The monopolies always hold all the cards and set the price. Even with stock markets, casual investors have no "real" influence on the price of things.

Only the big financial firms or other monopolies from other sectors have enough funds to influence the stock market.

Even if you went and took your entire life savings out of one fund, and moved it to another, or to an individual stock, nobody else would notice or care, except the middle men charging you to make a trade, that is.

The whole system is a scam rigged by the monopolies of the world.

It is not a supply and demand thing.

Even "true" supply and demand systems in the real world are themselves rigged by currency scams.
Monopolies do have a lot of control, but they do not hold all the power and supply and demand still applies. Do you honestly think those monopolies would even exist if there was no demand for their product?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
612. hydrus
10:29 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Jeff9614:


Florida Rainy Season is right around the corner!
Ya think so?
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 21249
611. PlazaRed
10:25 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting weatherh98:
spending money like we currently do is insane and unnecessary and thats why the economy is bad

I would sort of agree with you on that but there is another way to look at it.
When you reach the top of an hill, the only way to go is down. You are not in a position to evolve and fly up and off it as you will starve to death waiting for the evolution.
A man told me a long time ago that the Chinese leader said:- A hunger man will stand on top of a hill for a long time with his mouth open waiting for a roast chicken to fly into it.( I might have got that slightly wrong!)
The economy is bad because its a quandary; spending limitless cash will solve it but there is not limitless cash. Not spending enough cash will lead to depression.The 2 sides of the argument are easy to understand but you have to accept that the government is the fulcrum of balance.
Member Since: January 21, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2079
610. weatherh98
10:19 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting runningfromthestorms:
Misanthrope - we didn't enter WWII to help the oppressed we entered because Japan bombed us and their ally, Germany, declared war on us as well...we turned our backs on the suffering in Europe until then...and as for why our economy rebounded after WWII, we were the only manufacturing country left standing...Germany, England, Japan, France, etc...all were in shambles...we had a world monopoly...


Bingo
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6495
609. runningfromthestorms
10:18 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Misanthrope - we didn't enter WWII to help the oppressed we entered because Japan bombed us and their ally, Germany, declared war on us as well...we turned our backs on the suffering in Europe until then...and as for why our economy rebounded after WWII, we were the only manufacturing country left standing...Germany, England, Japan, France, etc...all were in shambles...we had a world monopoly...
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
608. weatherh98
10:09 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
spending money like we currently do is insane and unnecessary and thats why the economy is bad
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6495
607. weatherh98
10:07 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


You are insane if you think anything but WWII got us out of the great depression, and since when was getting in to more debt ever a great thinking? That's the type of spending that led to this freaking mess. Spending money we don't have is never ever a good thing. To think we can just sum up debt with no consequences is ludicrous.


WWII got us out of the depression but bob wallace has the wrong on the reasoning
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6495
606. SPLbeater
9:58 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting WxGeekVA:


Ok that's it... Everyone, man your battle stations!

Prepare to [!}, [-], and [Ignore User]!!!


let me do the [-] this time! :D lol
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4485
605. BobWallace
9:58 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


You are insane if you think anything but WWII got us out of the great depression, and since when was getting in to more debt ever a great thinking? That's the type of spending that led to this freaking mess. Spending money we don't have is never ever a good thing. To think we can just sum up debt with no consequences is ludicrous.


Call me insane.

But I'm not the one who doesn't realize that WWII caused the US government to borrow and spend a tremendous amount of money.

We could have gotten over the Great Depression sooner (most likely) with an additional stimulus, but conservatives blocked it and the recovery stalled. Only the bombing of Pearl Harbor got government borrowing and spending going once more.


If you don't understand why borrowing and spending works to increase revenue works you should stay far, far away from business. Others will gladly eat your lunch....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
604. TropicalAnalystwx13
9:56 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting SPLbeater:


how can i not respect a fellow blogger that joined, and began writing blogs on my favorite topic right off the bat! lol

yal, TropicalAnalystWx13 is here, watch your attitude....

What?

Quoting StormTracker2K:


2009 & 2010 brought lots of cold and Nor-Easters. Even lots of snow for Dallas that year as I remember they got 10" in one day.

I lived in the DFW (Dallas/Fort Worth) area during 2010. Our house got a little over 16". Having that much snow is amazing. :D
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32074
603. WxGeekVA
9:54 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Xvrus2000:

A little, tiny, itsy bitsy storm that missed Miami by more than 70 miles.

Yeah, it sure was the big one!


Ok that's it... Everyone, man your battle stations!

Prepare to [!}, [-], and [Ignore User]!!!
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3471
602. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
9:53 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Xvrus2000:

A little, tiny, itsy bitsy storm that missed Miami by more than 70 miles.

Yeah, it sure was the big one!


Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53846
601. SPLbeater
9:52 PM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting MAweatherboy1:
I wrote a blog recapping the life of Giovanna and discussing other tropical/ severe weather matters if anyone wants to check it out.


That's a great comment. I've been impressed with the respect I and other recent newcomers on the blog have gotten though. There's a lot of good people on here.


how can i not respect a fellow blogger that joined, and began writing blogs on my favorite topic right off the bat! lol

yal, TropicalAnalystWx13 is here, watch your attitude....
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4485
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

...and up to North Carolina. El Nino years are good for southern snow. :D


2009 & 2010 brought lots of cold and Nor-Easters. Even lots of snow for Dallas that year as I remember they got 10" in one day.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Man, that is an outrageous comment.

There was nothing good about WWII.

50 million corpses, and most of their names forgotten is somehow "good"?


So then, you think that those 50 million died for nothing? Personally, I think liberating Europe from Hitler's armies was a worthwhile thing indeed.


Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting StormTracker2K:


That's why I added the one or two storms. This emergence of El-Nino is just what people from Texas to FL want to see!

...and up to North Carolina. El Nino years are good for southern snow. :D
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32074
Quoting Xvrus2000:

Misanthope. I mean Neapolitan *cough cough*.

You are not fooling anyone, anymore. Give up the second handle and leave the old man alone.

Uhmmm....what about you? You're trying to imitate Xyrus2000..
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32074
Quoting yqt1001:


I never said good.

But I'm fairly biased here..me being pro-war and all.

What?

Stop being pro-war, it solves nothing. >:|
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32074
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

StormTracker2K, meet Andrew.



It only takes one......but you know that ;)


That's why I added the one or two storms. This emergence of El-Nino is just what people from Texas to FL want to see!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Man, that is an outrageous comment.

There was nothing good about WWII.

50 million corpses, and most of their names forgotten is somehow "good"?


I never said good.

But I'm fairly biased here..me being pro-war and all.
Member Since: November 19, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 1286

Viewing: 641 - 591

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 | 25Blog 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

Mostly Cloudy
73 °F
Mostly Cloudy