We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

2005: Warmest year on record

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 6:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2006

A study released by NASA yesterday confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, narrowly beating out 1998. That year a strong El Niño--a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean--added significant warmth to global temperatures. The new record was set without the help of an El Ni�o. This suggests that a very substantial warming trend is affecting the globe and more "warmest years ever" will continue to occur in this decade--particularly if they are El Niño years. Global warming since the middle 1970s is now about 0.6° C (1° F ). Total warming in the past century is about 0.8° C (1.4° F). The five warmest years over the last century have occurred in the last eight years. Reliable instrument records of global temperatures extend back to about 1880, but the consensus scientific view is that the current level of warmth has been unmatched for at least the past 125,000 years.

Figure 1: (Top) Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. The blue segments represent the uncertainty of of the measurements at the 95% level. (Bottom) Temperature anomaly for 2005 calendar year. Image credit: NASA Goddard.

The plot of 2005 temperature anomalies shows that virtually all land areas across the globe were warmer than average in 2005. More warming was observed in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, and the U.S. had its 13th warmest year on record. The Arctic had the most warming, helping make the extent of summer ice coverage over the Arctic Ocean in 2005 the lowest ever measured. It's sobering to note that even the Antarctic showed a net warming for 2005. The Antarctic had been the only land area on the globe to have cooler than average temperatures the past decade. If 2005 signals an end to this Antarctic cooling trend, we can expect a higher rate of global sea level rise in coming years as Antarctic melting increases.

Jeff Masters

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 259 - 209

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

259. riverotter1948
5:18 PM GMT on December 28, 2008
Cretaceous levels of CO2 have been estimated at 6 - 8 times higher than today. Why wasn't there a "runaway greenhouse" effect then like all the hysterical doomsayers are predicting for our future? In fact, since the sun's energy reaching the earth now is estimated to be lower than during the Cretaceous, isn't there less chance that there could be a "runaway greenhouse" effect now?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
258. TampaSteve
9:16 PM GMT on January 30, 2006
michalp wrote:

"americans can do no wrong, humans can do no wrong."

We're not saying America is perfect, or that humans are perfect, but the loony left's chant is "America can do no right", which is ignoring reality.

The left's idea of Globalism would be economic suicide for the USA. The Kyoto Treaty is a big scam, and the USA was smart to reject it.

BTW, I agree with chaser...there is no definitive empirical evidence that humans are primarily responsible for any warming trend in the climate. The earth has been far warmer, and CO2 concentrations far higher, in the past (long before the industrial revolution), and the Earth survived...we didn't become like Venus, and we're not going to...at least not for a few billion years or so.

Relax, folks...have a beer...life is good...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
257. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
4:50 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
atmosweather mail for you
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
256. Skyepony (Mod)
4:35 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
Observer~ that was too funny:P but the snowwoman from Chicago, now than near broke my heart.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
255. atmosweather
4:19 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
254. observer12
4:09 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
I thought some of you may appreciate a different perspective on the global warming debate. :)

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
253. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
3:38 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
and 3M to go to the next hurricane year oh boy what will we see
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
252. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
3:35 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
hey atmosweather and hurricanechaser mail for you too
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
251. atmosweather
3:16 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
Hey Tony :)

It is great to see you here. We are all very grateful that you can find time to post in your most difficult of situations. I too am going through some very tough times right now but friends like yourself are always comforting to me and make me feel a lot better about life.

Have a great night everyone,

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
250. hurricanechaser
3:09 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
Hey Colby and GetReal,

It is nice seeing you guys again as well. Everything will be ok in time(maybe like two months, before we get back in our home instead of the hotel).:) However, I will try to keep in touch as I am able to and ALWAYS enjoying hearing from you both.:)

Your friend,

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
249. HurricaneMyles
1:22 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
Its complicated and I'm no Met so I really have no idea how complicated. I can say this, the Atlantic's temps aren't going to effect the shear over the Altantic, its water temps and pressure upstream that determines what the shear is over the Atlantic. Like El Nino & La Nina cause different pressure setups above them and as a result different setups in the Atlantic, the Atlantic pressure setup causes different effects downstream. Its a global system thus pressure setups halfway accross the globe effect us on the other side. Look at Siberia, all the cold there us causing us in the Western Hemisphere to be quite warm.

I can say this, it is very unlikely, damn near impossible, that we will ever see a year long hurricane season in the Atlantic. Even in the West Pacific, where the season is year long, they have 85% of thier storms during May-December. And outside those times its very rare to see a typhoon, only about 20 have formed in 100 years outside of May-December.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
248. theboldman
12:34 AM GMT on January 28, 2006
i dont think the wind shear will go away if the water warms its different right?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
245. FtWaltonBch2Tucson
10:43 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
cyclone, It's not just the SST's that are involved in hurricane formation.... If the upper winds aloft are too strong, it's not going to happen. Why do you /think/ we haven't had one since Zeta? There's been too much sheer.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
242. smadsen8486
9:57 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
Yeah but the more research that is done, the more evidence there will be for BOTH sides of the argument. The debate over global warming is one where for every piece of evidence found to support one side, there will be another piece found to support the opposition. Another difficult thing about global warming is that there are numerous aspects which are at debate...

1) is the planet warming or not?
2) are we causing global warming or do the greenhouse gases have no significant effect?
3) is the current warming cycle natural or is this an abnormal surge we have caused?
4) should we be concerned over the impacts or will the effects be minimal?

Those are just a few on the top of my head, I'm sure there are dozens more of topics being debated. That's what makes this whole main topic of global warming difficult. There are dozens of questions to be answered before we can even come to the slightest idea of what is really going on.

Personally in my opinion I don't argue against further research of the problem, but regardless of the results we need to let whatever may be happening go on naturally. Sure we may be looking at a potential re-landscaping and re-climating (if those are words) of the entire planet, but if we were to do something about it, we would be messing with nature and the natural course it has set for this planet. Should we really change what this planet already has in store for us, might those effects be far worse then what is already set to happen?

Just a few more cents of mine thrown into the tango. This has turned into a rather interesting and informative debate, (from most bloggers).
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
241. Fshhead
9:16 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
Here is something I think we can ALL agree on. There needs to be ALOT more research into the global warming. I wrote an e-mail to Dr. Masters in the beginning when I started my blog. I think he summed it up pretty well.
"the fact that so many researchers don't agree on this issue is cause for alarm". Like I have said before I have heard alot of good "facts" for both sides. This is the stuff that the scientists need to be working on. I would hate to think that in future generations they look back at our generation & see all the warning signs & we did nothing about it. That's MY main point....
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
240. ForecasterColby
6:39 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
In Cindy's case, it was pretty much certain a few days later with only a slight analysis. It was missed at the time, but the modification has been expected for a long while.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
239. HurricaneMyles
6:21 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
After the hurricane season ends the NHC gathers all the information it can from all the weather stations that were effected by a tropical system. They also re-analyse data they collected from satalites and ships and decides if the forecasts they issued were correct.

In Cindy's case doppler radar sampled greated then 73 knots in the air during landfall and with 90% reduction to the surface that equates to greater then 65 knots, which is a hurricane.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
238. michalp
5:52 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
>> Always blame humans and most of all blame America First!!!

awww, someone hurt your feelings.
americans can do no wrong, humans can do no wrong.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
237. quakeman55
5:29 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
So what does everyone think of now-Hurricane Cindy? Funny how they can look at the data months after the storm made landfall and decide that it was stronger than they said it was at the time...how exactly can they do that?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
236. TPaul
4:35 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
Destiny, thanks for the report, that was interesting to read and shows how adaptable we are as a species. I certainly couldn't function at those temperatures and yet it seems there life goes on. We had ice fog here in Lexington, Kentucky the other morning with temperatures in the low 20's (above zero) and you should of seen the problems it caused. Around here schools would be closed if the temperature dropped below zero for highs.

Stay warm.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
235. ForecasterColby
3:11 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
Good to see you again Chaser! How are things?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
234. GetReal
2:59 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
Kudos hurricanechaser, I wish that I had your patience to deal with these global warming leftist...Always blame humans and most of all blame America First!!!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
233. F5
2:51 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
Forecast for today and tomorrow for D/FW area is more rain! Hooray...If we could get a nice 1/2 to 1 inch every week, it would go a long way towards getting us out of D4, lowering the fire danger, replenishing lakes/reservoirs, etc. I'm sure that's asking too much, but I'll take whatever we can get. After today/tomorrow, there is a low chance for precip late next week. So long as it doesn't get too warm/windy, any rain we get today should stay in the soil and not evaporate too much. Current forecast details average temps so not worried there, just not sure about the winds.

Hope everyone else in the drought areas gets much needed rain as well. Tucson, sorry, I don't think this is going to help you, but I hope you get rain soon...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
232. Destiny
2:02 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
Just dropping in to say hello, its been quite a while.
Here is an article from this mornings paper about the cold here in Fairbanks. Its a balmy -51 degrees this morning in the heart of the Golden City and the ice fog is thick enough to move with your hands provided your brave enough to go outside.

Here is the article from the Fairbanks Daily Newsminer

Here is the WUnderground Forecast for Fairbanks today.

Here's to staying warm.

Destiny in Alaska
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
231. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
1:41 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
hurricanechaser it is so nic to see you back on the blog we miss you so march and by the way mail for you
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
230. RL3AO
1:24 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
For the winter carnaval in st. paul, there is no snow left and the ice scuptures are melting.

This will be the warmest January on record for MSP
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
229. RL3AO
1:21 PM GMT on January 27, 2006

In Minneapolis the record high for 1/27 is 47 degrees.

The low today was 43 degrees. The days low was only 4 degrees lower that the record high!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
228. weatherworried
12:14 PM GMT on January 27, 2006
"most scientists are incorrect the vast majority of time trying to predict the extreme event more than a week in advance much less DECADES. "

They have difficulty predicting exactly when the extreme events will happen, but they can predict how often they will happen. For example, if I throw a coin
10000 times, having 10 heads in a sequence is an extreme event, and I
have no way of knowing when it will happen, but I can confidently predict that this extreme event will happen a few times (about 10 times, in fact).
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
227. hurricanechaser
11:37 AM GMT on January 27, 2006

Nice attempt to belittle the obvious intent and truths in my post. EVERYTHING in my post wasn't based on speculation nor assunmptions but on UNDENIABLE FACTS to keep this debate in perspective.

YOu on the other hand choose to try and manipulate the obvios meanings of the comments I posted. I stand by the FACT that most scientists are incorrect the vast majority of time trying to predict the extreme event more than a week in advance much less DECADES.

I feel very comfortable making such a statement because I work in a scientific fiels known as Atmospheric sciences and don't base my presumptive opinions on what I choose to believe.

You can choose to believe that the current increase in global temperatures are directly related to greenhouse gas emissions JUST AS YOU CAN CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN THE TOOTHFAIRY if you like (please excuse the sarcasm). The fact is that just because a consensus view is the prevailing standard for acceptance of a theory in the scientific community, it still doesn't make it an infalliable TRUTH. As a result, I ask you to once again contemplate the real meanings behind my post instead of your desired and perceived mischaracterizations of my views.



Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
226. hurricanechaser
11:18 AM GMT on January 27, 2006

It is very disappointing that you misread either intentionally or untentionally the content of the post when you made this following comment.

"hurricane i respect your opinion that much of the change is natural. However, your spouting as fact that all of the climate change is 'natural' is just as grating as cyclonebuster's obsession with the tunnels . Why don't you just agree with many of us who say we can't tell what is causing the warming yet. as for what to do about possible climate change, i guess it isnt within the realm of this blog. also, you state that all the changes are 'natural' and then you blame land use changes on some of the warming. well, i don't think the heat island effect or deforestation count as 'natural' climate variation."

Now, PLEASE REREAD most post and you will see what I declared as FACT, is that no one can say Global warming has been significantly affected by greenhouse gas emissions. Please post any comments where I said it is a FACT that there is NO WAY greenhouse gas emissions haven't had any effect.

I've ALWAYS stated that I personaly believe it hasn't and that the proven FACT of NATURAL climate variability is undeniable while we could NEVER know if human activity has had any effect whatsoever on increased temperatures. You took my comments out of context and attributed statements to me that I didn't make...just plese read them below once again.:)

Moreover, I was also making a reference to the fact that many of the record temperature reading throughout our Country are likely being enhanced by the NEW airport sites that are located in wide open areas, and are being measured while being surrounded by such artificial heat enhancing factors such as nearby asphalts, etc. Therefore, it is hard to accurately compare past decade temperatures with the more recent ones for factors such as these. Once again, you misunderstood my comments and tried to give them meanings that weren't intended.:)

The comments below are a reposting of the comments that you said are getting on your nerves so to speak, and that I am saying such things are FACTS that aren't...ok, where am I wrong? These are FACTS because I am ONLY stating the obvious, that no one can say now or ever, what the global temperatures would've ever been WITHOUT greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, no one can deny that it is actually POSSIBLE that there could have been no difference at all. Anyone who ascribes to the alarmist view as you might be doing (I apologize if I am incorrect), can't circumvent the FACT that the only way to prevent ANY human impacts on the Earth is that we no longer exist. It is far more annoying when others (maybe you included)suggest that we are going to become extinct because we choose to drive cars for one example.

This GUESS is not only alarmist, but is absolutely based on NOTHING except assumptions, conjecture, and FEAR. Basically, there is no reality involved in such arguments. Unfortunately, that won't stop the unfounded and speculative posting that continues to feul a completely unprovable hypothesis such as human induced global warming.

MY PREVIOUS POST FOR YOU TO READ ONCE AGAIN.:)(Please try to read it more carefully this time.:)

"The only thing we can all can know for certain is that most SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG MOST OF THE TIME, so a consensus of them means VERY LITTLE to support this speculative argument. Likewise, we can also be assured that WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CONTROL the weather and it is quite arrogant to even think otherwise, because our attempts to do so, may very well have far worse adverse consequences (makes me think of a tunnel idea I heard about once).

I am sure that all those on here who want to blame everything from last weeks sinus problem to the next severe thunderstorm in their own backyard on human induced global warming, will repost my comments and give their best UNPROVABLE AND SPECULATIVE rebuttals. However, the simple FACT is that it is UNDENIABLE that noone truly knows how much warmer or even cooler the Earth might have been had we never inhabited our planet.

Moreover, the same has to be true when trying to determine if we have truly had ANY noticeable impact on the earths temperatures with greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is that it is impossible to know and will never be known. All arguments in support of this theory amount to little more than speculation and conjecture.

Therefore, people will keep posting their favorite links and posting on these blogs as to what they personally think or choose to believe. On the other hand, it truly matters very little because there is no scientist, computer model, or anything else than can PROVE that we have had ANY SIGNIFICANT effect on climate change. As a result, this debate will last for as long as we all inhabit the earth. Then at that point, there will be no one still here to tell us how much effect if any, we have truly had on NATURAL climate change.

Wow! you certainly proved me right by reposting a comment that you didn't like and followed it up with completely INCORRECT and distorted comments regarding my post.


This is a summarization as to my thoughts on the issue. Please DON'T add anything else to what I have said in the future.:)

It is a FACT that I can't PROVE that human activities have had no effect whatsoever. On the other hand, you can't PROVE that it has. The only thing that I try to help people understand is that we need to keep it all in perspective. Moreover, we do have undeniable PROOF of global climate variability and this should NOT be discounted as POSSIBLY the only reason for increased temperatures.

Just because you don't share my views and may not like me personally, I simply ask that you please don't attribute comments to me that I have NEVER made.


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
225. quakeman55
7:14 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
Hey everyone...even though it's over and done with, it looks like the infamous Hurricane Season of 2005 managed to toss one more surprise at us: During a post-storm analysis of Tropical Storm Cindy, the National Hurricane Center has upgraded it to a hurricane, bringing the total number of hurricanes to 15. They say that it briefly became a hurricane just before and as it was making landfall in extreme SE Louisiana. Check out the storm report here.

I'd imagine Dr. Masters will have something to say about it by tomorrow morning.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
224. CuriousCat
6:30 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
Wow, I'm amazed at the number of responses to this last post. As a newcomer to this website, I am so PLEASED to see so much critical thinking about our obvious short-term (uh where's winter?) and long-term global climate change issues. To those who doubt there is a problem, well I sure do hope this strange winter makes you scratch your head and say "WTF?" I don't know how much more obvious things really need to get for you.

To all others who have posted so much intelligent content about the issue of global climate change, I implore you to NOT STOP HERE! What an amazing thinktank we have here! But please, talk to your friends, your neighbors, your family, your professors, your congressperson, reporters, anyone who will listen to you! Share your knowledge about these crazy weather patterns we're observing, these record-breaking times when nothing is making sense. Why isn't there more hoopla about this in the media? You don't just have a 5-20 degree increase across the US without long-term effects. How's our agriculture industry going to cope with lost crops? Who's got Anderson Cooper's phone number? This is the time to call him and tell him he's got a story to tell! The winter that never came: how, why, and what now?

I urge you all to join nonprofit groups that take the kind of action that you believe in, that you're trying to convice people of in this forum. If all of us overeducated nerds (myself included) turned our thoughts and observations outwards, we'd have a huge impact! Maybe enough, if we start soon.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. Hope somebody's listening.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
223. Inyo
6:25 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
yeah i dont think any noticable sea level rise will occur in our lifetimes beause as you said, precipitation in antarctica may increase, in fact i believe it has already been noted. If it raises 10 degrees, well its -20 instead of -30 in the summer and it snows twice as much. that ice cap isnt going to go anywhere.

in my opinion, if the climate continues to warm... it isnt rising sea levels but shifts in rainfall and storm patterns that will cause severe floods and storms in some areas and droughts in other areas. One model i saw predicted rainfall increases of 50% in California with 2000 foot higher snow levels. It's just a model and could be completely wrong.. but if this occurs, the entire central valley will go back to being a swamp. not hurting 'the earth' at all, but removing most of California's agriculture
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
222. ProgressivePulse
5:19 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
My Aunt is from St. Paul, usually in a deep freeze this time of year.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
221. ProgressivePulse
5:18 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
How about those temps in Minnesota this time of year?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
220. Skyepony (Mod)
4:57 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
St Paul's Winter Carnival Is melting:( Dr Masters had posted some pics when it had opened for the winter. Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
219. Skyepony (Mod)
4:38 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
That cold snap in europe ended up killing a lot of people. Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
218. Skyepony (Mod)
4:31 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
A drought article
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
217. Skyepony (Mod)
4:20 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
The Mile High Swinging Bridge appears to have survived the windstorm without damage, officials said. The bridge is anchored by two large cables and stabilized by 42 support cables. Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
216. RL3AO
3:01 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
That wind is very impressive, I wonder how high it was?

On a different note, it appears that the uppermidwest will have above average temps everyday in January.

In the Twin Cities it has been above average temps everyday since December 22. This will be the warmest January on record in the Twin Cities and I cannot remember such a "heat wave" in January like this.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
215. scooter127
2:40 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
200+mph Wind Hits Grandfather Mtn, NC

Wind breaks record, property
by From staff reports
published January 26, 2006 6:00 am


Wednesdays winds broke records, along with windows, floors and walls at a local tourism spot.

The visitor center at Grandfather Mountain took a beating during morning winds too strong for U.S. Weather Service equipment to measure accurately.

Winds knocked over a 300-pound boulder cemented to the visitor center parking lot, Grandfather Mountain spokeswoman Catherine Morton said in a news release. The gusts tore tiles off the floor, shattered three reinforced windows and opened a locked door.

A reading of 200 mph for some gusts broke Grandfathers record of 195.5 mph set on April 18, 1997. But speeds could have been higher, Morton said, because the Weather Services anemometer only measures to 200.

The highest wind speed on record in the eastern United States was 231 mph at Mount Washington, N.H., in 1934, she said.

By Wednesday evening, Progress Energy crews had restored power to all 9,900 customers who had lost service after powerful winds toppled trees onto power lines. The outages were widely scattered across Buncombe and Haywood counties.

We were able to get folks back on quickly, spokesman Ken Maxwell said.

A high wind warning remained in effect for the mountains until 6 p.m. Wednesday, with sustained winds of 25 to 40 mph with gusts of up to 60 mph expected.

Last weekend, a day and a half of high winds accosted the mountains, toppling trees and tearing shingles from homes. The weather settles down today, with the forecast calling for mostly sunny skies with a high around 40.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
214. theboldman
2:34 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
213. ForecasterColby
2:17 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
He gave MIT permission...well, I'm glad. I wouldn't want MIT students to feel unwelcome :)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
211. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
2:14 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
atmosweather more mail for you and did you get my log e mail
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
210. atmosweather
1:47 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
Lol dcw. Absolutely right.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
209. HurricaneMyles
1:41 AM GMT on January 27, 2006
It doesn't matter if it was thier idea or not. If it were so great they'd probably offer you money to sell it to them. If this was the way to stop global warming and do all the things you say, then they would be doing anything to be involved with you. It would be the greatest invention of the 21st century and they would have the opportunity to be known by it and to help stop global warm. That what you're saying, that these things will stop global warming, so if they beleived that they would be doing far more to help you.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 259 - 209

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

Category 6™


Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

Ad Blocker Enabled