No Alberto, and the NASA/Dr. James Hansen affair

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:28 PM GMT on February 09, 2006

Share this Blog
0
+

Watching for Alberto
There will be no Subtropical Storm Alberto forming from the large cold-cored low pressure system off of the coast of Africa today. There has been no increase in deep convection near the storm's center the past 24 hours, and the storm has stayed over chilly waters less than 20 degrees C. The Greek tropical cyclones of 2005 that formed in a location similar to that of today's storm--Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta--all had ocean temperatures of at least 22 C to work with. It appears that 20 C is just too cold to support a tropical or sub-tropical system in this region. Today's storm--which does have winds of 35 mph, just below tropical storm force--is forecast to remain over waters cooler than 20 C and weaken as it slides slowly southeastward towards the African coast over the next few days.


Figure 1. Visible satellite image from 1300 GMT February 9, 2006, shows no sign of increased convection associated with the large low pressure system off of the coast of Africa. Image credit: Naval Research Lab, Monterey.

More on the NASA/Dr. James Hansen affair
As I reported in a blog two weeks ago: NASA tries to silence its top climate researcher, political appointees at NASA and NOAA have recently been attempting to control the flow of information coming out of the agencies. There are two more New York Times stories that have come out on the affair. Yesterday's story reports on the resignation of George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to Dr. James Hansen, NASA's top climate researcher. Apparently Mr. Deutsch had falsified his resume, claiming to have graduated from college, when transcripts revealed that was not the case. The second article, published February 4, reports that NASA's top administrator, Michael D. Griffin, issued a sharply worded statement calling for "scientific openness" throughout the agency. It sounds like for now, there will be less restriction on information coming out of NASA, which is a welcome change.

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: 86 - 36

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

86. hurricanechaser
3:19 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Goodbye Bobby:)
85. hurricanechaser
3:17 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Code,
My comment responding to your post to me...

"and those who read into my posts something that I don't mean, Code.:)"

you did the samething again.:)

Thanks,
Tony


84. weatherguy03
3:17 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Goodbye Chaser!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
83. hurricanechaser
3:15 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Bob,

YOu have a right to your opinion but you are the last person I'd look to for what to consider a proper way to treat another!
82. haydn
2:54 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Cyclonebuster,

Do you have a way to test your hypothesis? I am trying to look at this objectively. You have an idea. It may seem ridculous the rest of us. Until experiments prove this idea right or wrong, I have to say I am neither for or against the idea. Once experiments are done, are you willing to accept the results if you are proven wrong? If you are right, then you have succeeded.

Until I see results of experiments concerning tunnels, I have no plans to mention the subject.

Also, those who choose to drop the subject will stop adding fuel to the fire and it will die until we see results from experiments. I do have my opinions about the topic. For now, they will not appear on this blog.
81. hurricanechaser
3:12 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Hey Code,

I wasn't calling you,"immature", that was directed to BOB.

I was saying you were misrespresenting my comments by suggesting they have a different meaning as in I am spinning them.

Yoiu once again misinterpreted them...which is why I referenced you...please reread my previous post from the correct perspective.
80. tornadoty
3:07 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Boy oh boy, am I glad I haven't visited in a few hours.
79. code1
9:00 PM CST on February 09, 2006
Chaser, sorry that you feel I am immature. I at least have the knowledge to respect other opinions than my own. This has included yours many times. Your last statement is obvious to me that you do not do the same. Or are your other posts stating otherwise a fallacy? Not interested in a debate or fight with you. I do respect your far greater knowledge on weather than a lot of others here, and your compassion for others in need. I just think that you really believe it is your way or the highway...and I am ready for the road. Sorry it has come to the point that you cannot enjoy all here for what it and they are. Good luck with your family, housing, and new website and any future endeavors you may have. I really can't see you leaving here though. You have cried wolf many times before.

Sorry to be off topic to all you other bloggers, this has gone on long before you even knew there was a wundergound though...
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 66 Comments: 13872
78. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
7:06 PM PST on February 09, 2006
cool it and be nic
76. weatherguy03
3:00 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Listen, I am only going to say this once. If it wasnt for Dr. Masters, none of us would be able to have this great WU blogs to use as freely as we do. You wouldnt be able to promote yourself chaser and your weather videos, or to teach people on your blogs. None of this would be possible!!! To disrespect the person who gave you all of this is just terrible. And I think this community will be better off without you!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
75. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
6:59 PM PST on February 09, 2006
be nic
74. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
6:58 PM PST on February 09, 2006
hey
73. hurricanechaser
2:53 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Hey Bob,

you are a perfect example of what I am talking about!

You know that you are not in my league as a respectful person nor as a meteorologist.:)

You are wrong about Dr. Masters owning the site, its all of us paying that keeps it going like it has. I have a right to say what I believe as you say he does. Sorry, Code, I am not spinning anything, stating my beliefs, sorry you see it differently.

Have fun saying what you want, I'm done wasting my time with immature people like yourself Bob and those who read into my posts something that I don't mean, Code.:)

This is my last post, have fun Bob trying to be a decent forecaster.:)

Thanks,
Tony


72. weatherguy03
2:49 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Honestly, if this was my website, and I was Dr. Masters, I would throw you right off of it. He is a very kind man for letting you stay here. Have some respect chaser!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
71. code1
8:43 PM CST on February 09, 2006
Chaser, please go read my post in your previous blog. What is obvious to you is not necessarily fact as you would have it believed just because you do so. Not an attack here, just feel you have crossed the line of decency and respect, no matter the spin you put on it.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 66 Comments: 13872
70. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
6:44 PM PST on February 09, 2006
weatherguy03 watch it do not tell him that
68. weatherguy03
2:39 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Hey chaser!!..I thought you were leaving this website!!..Run along now!!..LOL..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
67. hurricanechaser
2:12 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Hey Skepony,

I am sharing my personal view not attackng him unlike his blatant recirculation of unsubstantiated information that is very defaming to people for which he has NO PERSONAL knowledge and is simply relying on the veracity of a VERY LIBERAL news source.

Please tell me how this is appropriate which is the gest of my post which you obviously overlooked.

"A public affairs official at NASA said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific issues, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Since Dr. Hansen’s December 6 talk, NASA has rejected several media requests to interview him, including one by National Public Radio (NPR). According to Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the NASA Goddard Institute, a NASA public affairs official appointed by the White House, George Deutsch, rejected the NPR interview request. He called NPR “the most liberal” media outlet in the country, and that his job was “to make the president look good.” Deutsch denied making the statements. McCarthy disagrees, saying she has no reason to lie.

THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW WHICH IS LYING AND IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT IT WASN' MR. DEUTSCH?

If so, how can anyone support the defamation of anothers character when there is no PROOF to substantiate such a claim.

"The effort to control information coming out of NASA echoes similar directives issued last Fall in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when on September 29, a memo aimed all National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees (including those in the National Weather Service) ordered them not to speak to the national media unless the interview request was first approved by public affairs personnel. I talked to a contact at NWS who confirmed that the memo was indeed sent out, and was likely done in response to the political fallout from the Katrina disaster."

"Both NASA and NOAA have emphasized that the rules preventing scientists from speaking freely to the media had always been in place, but that the rules were being enforced more rigorously now. I say the new enforced restrictions are ridiculous. Our scientists have never needed these restrictions in the past. Our tax-payer salaried scientists should be free to speak out on more than just their scientific findings without the chilling oversight of politically-appointed officials concerned with “making the president look good.”

Here, Dr. Masters is stating as FACT that Mr. Deutsch did do and say what he denies. That is WRONG in my humble opinion since Dr. Masters has no personal knowledge of the alledged conversation and it very well may not have occurred.


"Climate change is of critical importance to all of us, and we should hear the opinions of those scientists who understand the issue the best."

Jeff Masters



Once again, a manipulation of FACTS which may have been unintentional naturally. Dr. Masters says we should hear the opinions of those who understand the issue best(notice how that person is supportive of his belief). There's no way anyone can say that Mr. Hansen understands it best. He could very well be wrong, and Dr. Masters did not say, in my opinion, Mr. Hansen is one of the best in the field, but allows for the assumption that he is.

If he's wrong about the DIRECT cause of global warming(which is certainly possible)then he wouldn't be one of the best if he is indeed wrong!


Heres Dr. Masters next blog:

"More on the NASA/Dr. James Hansen affair:"

"As I reported in a blog two weeks ago: NASA tries to silence its top climate researcher, political appointees at NASA and NOAA have recently been attempting to control the flow of information coming out of the agencies. There are two more New York Times stories that have come out on the affair."


Look again, Dr. Masters is once again stating these stories from the VERY LIBERAL New York Times as FACTS! He doesn't say it is POSSIBLE or that it is alledged that it MAY be occurring. No, he states it as if it's an undeniable FACT!


"Yesterday's story reports on the resignation of George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to Dr. James Hansen, NASA's top climate researcher."


Once again, He is stating the same aforementioned assumptions that are debatable and certainly not proven to be FACTS!

"Apparently Mr. Deutsch had falsified his resume, claiming to have graduated from college, when transcripts revealed that was not the case. The second article, published February 4, reports that NASA's top administrator, Michael D. Griffin, issued a sharply worded statement calling for "scientific openness" throughout the agency. It sounds like for now, there will be less restriction on information coming out of NASA, which is a welcome change."

Jeff Masters



This is a blantant attempt by Dr. Masters to substantiate the other New York Times stories that could be inaccurate and by discrediting Mr. Deutsch, they both try to prove that he lied and did say what he denies having never done nor said. Most importantly, neither DR. Masters nor the N.Y. Times can prove he what they are claiming!

Therefore, I for one think it is WRONG to defame a person who could very well be innocent as he himself says is the case.

This is the reason I wrote the previous post. If you believe Dr. Masters is a moderate, that's your right, but it seems pretty obvious to me that he is very liberal and the sources that he repeatedly cites are certainly liberal.

Even if you don't agree with my views, I hope this gives you a better understanding of my intentions which aren't meant to attack him personally as you inaccurately suggested.

Thanks,
Tony

66. Trouper415
2:17 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Chaser, good to see ya bud. I want to ask you though, what is the downside of cutting back our emmisions, and what are the possible positives? And what are the downsides of continuing our fossil fuel emmisions at an exponential rate like we are, and what are the positives?
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 637
65. TPaul
9:09 PM EST on February 09, 2006
Chaser, I too think you might be taking too hard a line on this. I am a registered Kentucky Democrat my voting record goes like this. I liked Reagan, voted for Bush Senior 1988, Clinton 1992 & 96, Al Gore 2000 and G.W. Bush 2004. I tend to consider myself a moderate and think that both parties tend to be controled too much by their extreme wings but this is not one of those cases where I think on either side they went total overboard. I think this guy was fired for lieing and I don't think that the NYT tried to make more of this then there was because they knew there really wasn't that much here to work with. I don't feel that Dr. Masters really deserved the lenghty lashing that you gave him, but that is just MHO.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
64. Trouper415
1:45 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Cyclone buster, her pouring the cold water into the tub would be the equivlent of pouring trillions of gallons of water into the ocean. How big do you want to make these tunnels? And out of what material? For the size they would have to be, they would surely be less boyant than the water thus making them sink. Or, would you want giant floatation devises the size of alabama on top of the tunnels to keep them afloat? Somewhat similar to the ones that keep a baby floating in a pool that you can buy at Toys-R-Us.

Giants in 06
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 637
61. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
5:15 PM PST on February 09, 2006
hey
60. Skyepony (Mod)
12:46 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Chaser~ i'm not sure where your getting this is all about Master's shoving human induced global warming into our heads. it's about a 24 year old, almost journalism grad, modifing & censoring scientific info that americians pay to generate. I for one still haven't seen a link to what this kid didn't want released. NASA's sick of being sensored. NASA announced that. Conservatives don't care to make there pres look bad & vice versa. If you'd read all of Master's blogs he lies more in the middle & is tired of the 2 party system. It's a free country, you can read & believe what you want, but in my opinion it's getting rude to attack Masters every time you show up on his blog.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36075
59. hurricanechaser
11:27 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
Dr. Masters,

It is quite pathetic to see you quote very liberal news sources in an apparent attempt to get so many of these impressionable bloggers on here to believe what they read in your blogs, which have consistently been flawed with errors that I have let go uncorrected, because it made little difference to me out of respect for you and your site.

However, I have a change of mind since you have recently chosen to use your excellent "weather" website as a politiocal forum to make completely unsubstantiated claims relying solely on VERY LIBERAL sources.

It is a shame that so many people blindly admire those like yourself who choose to make unsubstantiated claims that amount to little more than personaL attacks on those you don't like, such as the Bush administration. I am all for free speech, but not for defaming anothers character without you knowing PERSONALLY if it's true, which isn't the case here nor was it in your previous blog on the subject.

If a more conservative source like the Weekly standard had reported something about the Clinton adminstration that was just as unsubstantiated, you would most likely be quick to point out the Conservative leanings of that source and question the veracity of that article.


TO EVERYONE ELSE,

Dr. Masters is spouting unsubstantiated propaganda once again to support his own personal views as in his attempts to PROVE human induced global warming that cannot ever be proven no matter how He and the rest of you who accept this guess and try to suggest otherwise.

Simple fact, no one knows how warm the Earth's temperatures would've been had there been no greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, how can ANYONE say how much if any temperature difference would've occured without that effect.

Simply put, can anyone PROVE that greenhouse gas emissions are DIRECTLY responsible for the increased temperatures and that it isn't the DIRECT result of Natural climate variability. Simple answer, no one can prove either case regardles of how many model runs, studies, or the opinions of those in the field who wish to suggest this for THEIR OWN POLITICAL AGENDA like Dr. Masters, James Hansen, and the vast majority of liberal scientists.

Ever notice that it is all the Liberals on here who subscribe to human induced global warming and the more conservative leaning like myself(proudly I may add)are more objective and careful not to blatantly say our view is a fact. It is important to note that I have no ties to oil and big business as those like Dr. Masters tries to suggest of those who have a dissenting opinion of his view on global warming about the DIRECT CAUSE.

Let me be clear, I am not a huge fan of George Bush and I disagree with some of his policies as should be the case with any objective person. However, I have never looked at the debate over global warming as a political issue. Unfortunately, this is the ONLY way those who have a liberal persuasion can ever win this debate and get their way, because it can never be proven by science alone.

I am also in favor of getting away from our major dependence on oil and encourage the idea of finding alternative sources of energy, but not because I believe greenhouse gas emissions are the DIRECT result of global warming, but for other more serious reasons as noted in my posts in Fshheads blog.

Let me be crystal clear, I am not saying human activities have had ZERO effect on climate change(which is also unprovable)but that any effect if at all has and will continue to be minimal. The simple fact is that no one can ever prove me wrong in my BELIEF(which is all of our individual opinions amount to)just as I can't prove that it hasn't had more of an effect than I personally believe.

This is the reason it is far less about science and more a persons choice of belief as are many polorizing political issues like Abortion, gay marriage, taxes, and affirmative action to name just a few.

I for one am disappointed that those like Dr. Masters would use his excellent weather site and manipulate his blogs in an apparent attempt to score political points for his liberal views. Honestly, I don't see a problem with him sharing his personal views, but he crosses a line when he chooses to spread unsubstantiated information from sources that have their own political leanings. Since when has the news media been the source of all truth?

This is yet anoher reason why I have lost so much respect for those like Dr. Masters, who chooses to engage in the politics of smear tactics when he peronally has no proof to back his own claims.

Please notice how I ALWAYS give my opinions as stating that they are my own personal belief and/or my best educated guess. Now, please reread this blog and the previous one about James Hansen by Dr. Masters and you will see that he doesn't say it is possible or that he personally believes but rather just adds his opinions as if they are factual statements in response to his use of unsubstantiated liberal sources.

Naturally, I have no dillusions that I will change even one mind with this post, but I at least felt compelled to add a semblance of common sense and fairness to a debate that has become one that attacks those with an opposing view personally(just watch the posts that follow this one in response).

This is the reason I have chosen NOT to post in this distorted blog for some time, and why I will seldom if ever do so again. I for one care more about not accusing others of something that would be sen as negative toward them personally, when I don't have undeniable evidence to support my claims. I guess that may put me in the minority, but since when has any Truth been defined as a majority opinion.

Simply put, Truth is and will always stand alone as incorruptiable regardless of ones personal opinion of it. I am not saying I know the Truth about either of these two issuses, but am simply stating I am not pretending as if I do, unlike too many others who refer to their favorite unproven article of the day to try and suggest it is the reality, rather than just their own personal opinion. That being said, this entire post is my own personal opinion and should not be characterized as being any more or less than that reality.

Thanks,
Tony


58. HurricaneMyles
12:16 AM GMT on February 10, 2006
Looks to me that the thunderstorms were firing up in the second wind maximum. If it would have continued over water for a longer period I'm sure one would have fired up and persisted, causing the start of an ERC.

As far as the track of the storm, it seems to me that Rita followed a pretty straight track during the radar loop they show. Didnt show much turn at all, if any. I dont think anybody 'turned' this storm, rather a it took a couse that was slightly north of due west which changed the track dramaticly over 800 miles.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
57. michalp
7:13 PM EST on February 09, 2006
those tunnels could have gotten that guy fired.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
56. tornadoty
11:56 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
I'm guessing that those are thunderstorms, maybe reforming near the same place because of upper-level conditions.
55. ForecasterColby
11:38 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
If those actually did appear, it would be a bug. Even if the millitary did have some sort of weather control, there's no way they'd leave such an obvious trace.

Cyclone, the tunnels are a fantastic idea, but do not work in practise. Please stop claiming they are the solution to everything, since many people with a good deal more experience in the field then you have concluded they are not. The waters simply would not mix, no matter how hard you tried. If they did, the warm water would settle on top anyway.
54. Skyepony (Mod)
11:24 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
Here was an interesting thing on Rita being "turned" by the govt. Link
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36075
53. arcturus
11:28 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
I am confused!!!

is stormchaser77 and cyclonebuster the same person!

Somebody help me out here?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
47. Cregnebaa
4:24 PM EST on February 09, 2006
More cyclone...
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
46. sunlakedude
8:55 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
> TampaSteve
I'd hardly call the Gray Old Lady, the NYT, to be "left-leaning". The problem with the Bush Administration is that it doesn't like criticism. In fact, this whole mindset has infected the GOP to the point that a GOP congressman or senator who questions the Administration or any of the party's hard-right platforms is ostracized. Indeed the next time such an official comes up for re-election the RNC will run an obedient candidate against such an infidel & throw big bucks into the local election to see that he/she is defeated. Character assasination & outright lies are fair game to the GOP of today. It's not surprising that NASA is attempting to censor it's own scientists when they make statements that conflict with an Administration position. It wasn't always this way but now the GOP has been be-smudged by this mind-set & the people now in control & will quite possibly lead to the party's demise in the near future.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
45. HurricaneMyles
8:58 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
ROLFLMAO!!! I meant theres more questions then answers not more answers then questions. LOL...damn being in a rush. But seriously, a lot more thought and preperation needs to go into the idea.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
44. HurricaneMyles
8:39 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
Unfortunelty, globalize, cyclone doesnt have any numbers crunched, and if he does he hasen't shown us any; just unverifiable numbers that he pulled out of thin air. However, I would say your straw in a lake comparision is accurate, but maybe a stick lol :)

However, he does propose putting many so thats not really the question. What are is do the even work, and as much as cyclone has said they will, I've seen far more evidence to support that they wont. Also, even if they do work, what kind of impact will they have on the environment besides weaking hurricanes. Weaking hurrianes is even in question because there no telling how much a storm will weaken since they all have different circumstances to their environment. Plus a fast moving storm wont weaken much at all since it doesnt stay over the cool water very long.

In conclusion there are more answers then questions. For a good proposal that will convince people of your idea you need HARD NUMBERS that show a good estimation of what will happen. And not just for eletricity generation or speed, but things like the pressure entering the tunnel, pressure exiting the tunnel, pressure inside the tunnel, energy lost due to friction in the tunnel, cost to build them, cost to maintain them(they will need maintaince, there in ficken salt water). And those are just to start, there are many more.

You need to show the forumlas you are using, what numbers you plugged into the formulas to get your answer, and what assumptions you made.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
43. TPaul
8:38 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
Wait a minute, isn't building the tunnels to stop the tunnels like using an Easy Button to find an Easy Button. It might cause a failure of the space time continuum, oh well, whats the worst that can happen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
42. TPaul
8:31 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
Cyclonebuster = Dr. Evil

Hey, think we have the plot for Austin Powers IV.

Unless the world pays him a ransom of ONE MILLION DOLLARS we will all be sucked into his "Tunnels" and forced to argue this point until our brains implode from the suction created by them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
41. TPaul
8:15 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
The W tunnel would draw warm water down and and would help to pick up some cool water and move it up. The tunnel heading down would be larger at top, narrow to a point say 2/3rds its lenght and then widen about 3/4ths its original width. It would open up at the mouth of an upward tunnel that was twice its width pulling in both the warmer water coming down plus the flow of cooler water at that depth. The upward tunnel would narrow its full length and empty out at a point just below the surface in front of another downward tunnel, the same design as the previous, the next upward tunnel would be of the same design as the previous upward tunnel as well. So there would be 2 distinct tunnel designs then that would just repeat in sets of 4. Yea, don't know how it happened but I feel like I have gotten sucked into a tunnel.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
40. Fshhead
8:13 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
LOL I coudn't resist.........
BUILD THE TUNNELS TO STOP THE FUNNELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man, that was a good one Myles!!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
39. globalize
8:10 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
How much water volume could a tunnel displace? Sounds like the equivalent of sinking a straw in a hundred acre lake. Who can talk volumes and ratios here? I'm sure cyclone's got it figured out! Let's crunch some number!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
38. Skyepony (Mod)
8:12 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
those same forecasts in 3-D might help further with the accuracy & placement.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36075
37. TPaul
8:11 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
Thats what I am hoping. At this rate the tunnel idea will be in the next Super Bowl Energizer Bunny commercial because it just keeps going and going and going ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
36. Skyepony (Mod)
7:59 PM GMT on February 09, 2006
JeffB~ i can't either. Maybe if we make it work or totally disprove it the tunnel talk will cease...lol
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36075

Viewing: 86 - 36

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page

About JeffMasters

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