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: 225 - 175

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

Quoting HaloReachFan:


Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have good knowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a "sanity check" to avoid the risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed and lose its reputation.
In principle this notion seems entirely reasonable, but it neglects certain aspects of human nature, especially the tendency for reviewers to defend their own (earlier) papers, and indirectly their reputations, against challengers. Peer review also ignores the strong tendency for papers that disagree with a popular hypothesis, one the reviewer understands and perhaps supports, to receive a closer and often hostile scrutiny.
Reviewers are selected from practitioners in the field, but many scientific fields are so small that the reviewers will know the authors. The reviewers may even have worked with the authors in the past or wish to work with them in future, so the objectivity of any review is likely to be tainted by this association.
Some journals now request that authors suggest appropriate reviewers but this is a sure way to identify reviewers who will be favourable to certain propositions.
It also follows that if the editor of a journal wishes to reject a paper, then it will be sent to a reviewer who is likely to reject it, whereas a paper that the editor favours to be published will be sent to a reviewer who is expected to be sympathetic. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of the journal "Science" announced that there was no longer any doubt that human activity was changing climate, so what are the realistic chances of this journal publishing a paper that suggests otherwise?
The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.
In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.
Link


You missed my point.

This is not a blog solely populated by degreed individuals.

It is a blog provided so that people can gather and blog about their views of the weather. Be they right or wrong, it matters not.

Expecting people to adhere to the standards of a specialized blog is nothing short of "CENSORSHIP OF FREE SPEECH".

If I remember correctly, long ago, those who insisted, against CTW, that the world was round, risked being burned at the stake for such heresy.

If you want this to become a 'Degrees Only' blog, by all means, get the Doctor to make those changes immediately.

Otherwise stop trying to censor the free speech of those who visit here.

Harry Potter is a fictional character, so is the belief that being degreed in a subject makes your views above challenge by others who are not so degreed.

CTW - Current Thinking and Writing


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


Even Dr. Masters had a blog on this. Shear is the biggest factor not warming temperatures ect ect. Instead of ect ect. I'm going to start using whine whine
La nina's tend to decrease shear in the atlantic,and El nino is vise versa.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

You think we will have an above average season?
Yes I do.I think our La nina will stay in place,and sst have stayed above average in the atlantic.La nina/warm sst=bad hurricane season.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DEKRE:


There is a fundamental problem with all numerical models - they just cannot be replicated. If you use the grid and boundary conditions of the first work, it becomes trivial. If you use your own grid and boundary conditions you get a different result - any numerical model has to be calibrated - most are not.


I fixed it to give it a title that was on their website now it makes more sense.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
219. DEKRE
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
...LOL...

Link


There is a fundamental problem with all numerical models - they just cannot be replicated. If you use the grid and boundary conditions of the first work, it becomes trivial. If you use your own grid and boundary conditions you get a different result - any numerical model has to be calibrated - most are not.

The nonsense I have received from my graduate students, including PhD students is beyond imagination.
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
No calusakat, I am not wrong. I didn't silence anybody. Ossqss posted a list claiming 850 papers. I checked the first 5. None were by climatologists or meteorologists. How is disclosing that fact silencing anyone?


Don't feel bad people he won't link anything and I went back on the other blog and looked at who JFLORIDA had linked none of those people are educated in the field they used them for. Typical but who cares really.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
..sssspssssttt
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127636
Quoting calusakat:


Your silly attempt at silencing people from presenting differing viewpoints will not work here.

If this blog were part of an engineering group with only BS, MS and Phd's your point might have validity.

Neither is this blog a peer review group.

I know because I have two Phd's in my family and it is so hilarious when they start that peer review crap at the dinner table. Like we say in those instances, who cares whether it is peer reviewed, if its raining outside, it doesn't take a scientist to confirm it.

Not everything has to be peer reviewed or cited.

You are deliberately making such demands in an effort to censor those with whom you disagree.

It is wrong for you to even attempt to silence those with differing views of such a very personal subject such as the weather.

Personal, yes, because we all must deal with it on a daily basis for the most part.

It is part of our lives and for you to try to, essentially, tape our mouths shut is...reprehensible.





You are back-pedalling here.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
.."it's better to keep thy mouth shut,,and be thought a fool,
Than to open it and remove all doubt"..


Ol' Irish Verse

Milk Dud's anyone?

I got da Movie Sized box

Beer would be good with them Dud's
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Even Dr. Masters had a blog on this. Shear is the biggest factor not warming temperatures ect ect. Instead of ect ect. I'm going to start using whine whine

My understanding of shear is that it is generally upperlevel winds that tend to prevent clouds from gaining altitude by blowing them away (I am being purposefully simplistic here).

But winds are the result of pressure/temperature gradients.
And weather/climate obviously affects that.
So, with record cold and hot temps being the norm these days, I would expect shear to be an ongoing issue against hurricane formation.

But my own feeling is that extreme weather will be the norm, and Hurricanes are extreme weather.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:


Your silly attempt at silencing people from presenting differing viewpoints will not work here.

If this blog were part of an engineering group with only BS, Ms and Phd's you point would have validity.

Neither is this blog a peer review group.

I know because I have two Phd's in my family and it is so hilarious when they start that peer review crap at the dinner table. Like we say in those instances, who cares whether it is peer reviewed, if its raining outside, it doesn't take a scientist to confirm it.

Not everything has to be peer reviewed or cited.


Fallacies about Global Warming

Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have good knowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a "sanity check" to avoid the risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed and lose its reputation.
In principle this notion seems entirely reasonable, but it neglects certain aspects of human nature, especially the tendency for reviewers to defend their own (earlier) papers, and indirectly their reputations, against challengers. Peer review also ignores the strong tendency for papers that disagree with a popular hypothesis, one the reviewer understands and perhaps supports, to receive a closer and often hostile scrutiny.
Reviewers are selected from practitioners in the field, but many scientific fields are so small that the reviewers will know the authors. The reviewers may even have worked with the authors in the past or wish to work with them in future, so the objectivity of any review is likely to be tainted by this association.
Some journals now request that authors suggest appropriate reviewers but this is a sure way to identify reviewers who will be favourable to certain propositions.
It also follows that if the editor of a journal wishes to reject a paper, then it will be sent to a reviewer who is likely to reject it, whereas a paper that the editor favours to be published will be sent to a reviewer who is expected to be sympathetic. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of the journal "Science" announced that there was no longer any doubt that human activity was changing climate, so what are the realistic chances of this journal publishing a paper that suggests otherwise?
The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.
In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.
Link
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
The 4th paper has as its lead author David H. Douglass, who is not a meteorologist or climatologist.


Hmmm I'm seeing a pattern here!


Your silly attempt at silencing people from presenting differing viewpoints will not work here.

If this blog were part of an engineering group with only BS, MS and Phd's your point might have validity.

Neither is this blog a peer review group.

I know because I have two Phd's in my family and it is so hilarious when they start that peer review crap at the dinner table. Like we say in those instances, who cares whether it is peer reviewed, if its raining outside, it doesn't take a scientist to confirm it.

Not everything has to be peer reviewed or cited.

You are deliberately making such demands in an effort to censor those with whom you disagree.

It is wrong for you to even attempt to silence those with differing views of such a very personal subject such as the weather.

Personal, yes, because we all must deal with it on a daily basis for the most part.

It is part of our lives and for you to try to, essentially, tape our mouths shut is...reprehensible.




Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
The 4th paper has as its lead author David H. Douglass, who is not a meteorologist or climatologist.


Hmmm I'm seeing a pattern here!


Absolutely, trained character assassination by proxy. No mention of the data and findings. Just the same old stuff that makes this blog boring and even tyrannical now days. Let alone the pay per post indivuduals who now hammer the drum at the call of the host. In particular when banned individuals spew it the same way they did under their previous handle. LOL

http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.142.html
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
First 4 papers--number of lead authors who are climatologists or meteorologists...zero.

Douglass is also the lead author for the 5th paper so that makes 5.


I've gone back and I've found nothing that helps your people's case either. Just a bunch of silly nonsense spouted by people 'who want to help the planet'
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Well, you never know what will pass peer review in social sciences :).

Seriously. There is a much easier way of dealing with this than what you are doing.

The position of some is logically equivalent to the statement that humanity is not impacting the climate.

At least on a short term basis this is almost certainly not the case indicated by admittedly noisy data.

50 year decay period of human impacts? Perhaps.

If you want to say that humanities impact on climate is not important than SHOW ME.

Otherwise I stick to the IPCC estimates.

Ask them to SHOW YOU that humanity is NOT impacting the climate since this is their dogmatic position.

As for myself, I don't know... I'm a moron.

Good one...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

Kind of hard to forecast, this far out.
But I think it is fair to say, that with temps rising generally, and ongoing freak weather -including incredible winter cold and storms for many places- we can anticipate an active season. Regardless of the elNino/laNina phase.


Even Dr. Masters had a blog on this. Shear is the biggest factor not warming temperatures ect ect. Instead of ect ect. I'm going to start using whine whine
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563



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: 127636
Quoting HaloReachFan:


That's what some 'people' are saying. Would be nice to hopefully get a blog on this soon.

Kind of hard to forecast, this far out.
But I think it is fair to say, that with temps rising generally, and ongoing freak weather -including incredible winter cold and storms for many places- we can anticipate an active season. Regardless of the elNino/laNina phase.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:
Give me something to go look up or I will have to go back and scrutinize anything that you or JFLORIDA posted.


Something to look up and study
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Give me something to go look up or I will have to go back and scrutinize anything that you or JFLORIDA posted.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Honestly who is going to change their mind on this I'm sure nobody here will this is a horrible waste of time.


Think of it like this.

You are not really trying to change their minds.

You are trying to reach those who venture here as folks passing in the night. The lurkers as well. They will eventually see the Lords of AGW for the fools they are.

Keep the faith.

Truth always wins, sometimes it just takes longer.


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

That paper will never pass peer review; it's written from a very clearly contrarian-biased position.


Well, you never know what will pass peer review in social sciences :).

Seriously. There is a much easier way of dealing with this than what you are doing.

The position of some is logically equivalent to the statement that humanity is not impacting the climate.

At least on a short term basis this is almost certainly not the case indicated by admittedly noisy data.

50 year decay period of human impacts? Perhaps.

If you want to say that humanities impact on climate is not important than SHOW ME.

Otherwise I stick to the IPCC estimates.

Ask them to SHOW YOU that humanity is NOT impacting the climate since this is their dogmatic position.

As for myself, I don't know... I'm a moron.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
An above average season by 1886-2010 standards or by 1995-2010 standards?


How many storms made a direct hit with the U.S. this season? By direct I mean Eye Wall as a hurricane slamming into the U.S.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting pottery:

True.
Give us a topic to discuss.



Heliophysics, maybe with milk duds ?
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
The third paper has as its lead author, G. G. Anagnostopoulos, who is a civil engineer. Not a climatologist or meteorologist.

(this is gettin' good)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

You think we will have an above average season?


That's what some 'people' are saying. Would be nice to hopefully get a blog on this soon.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
I've asked the LoveStormsatNight for a link to anything really that shows warming is man made that is peer reviewed and I have yet to get anything back. Typical if you'd ask me. Seems like a simple task. But then he goes on to bash a list that he thinks Ossq made nice.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting washingtonian115:
About this years hurricane season,or our family history.Thier is also the current storm out there as well.

You think we will have an above average season?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

True.
Give us a topic to discuss.
About this years hurricane season,or our family history.Thier is also the current storm out there as well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

True.
Give us a topic to discuss.
Quoting washingtonian115:
I know the hurricane season is still some months out put so far all th ingrediants are coming together for a bad/active hurricane season.


Anything to do with weather NOW. Somebody posted something saying that there might be some more cold weather headed down to the south we can talk about that or something.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
.."it's better to keep thy mouth shut,,and be thought a fool,
Than to open it and remove all doubt"..


Ol' Irish Verse

Milk Dud's anyone?

I got da Movie Sized box
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127636
Quoting Neapolitan:

If you're going to quote something someone else wrote--even unscientific gibberish from a contrarian--you should say that's what you're doing by properly attributing it. If you don't, people will believe you're trying to pass it off as your own--especially when you change just enough words from the original text to make it sound like your own.


Contrarian gibberish? It's not gibberish to your non-contrarians unless the article dissects and thrashes one of the AGW establishment's idols. Trenberth's article was hardly one worthy of a so-called climate scientist.

Regarding attribution: my semi-computer literate four-year-old clicked on the "post comment" tab while I was in the midst of changing a diaper. I had copied and pasted an article from your favorite Anthony Watts website and had yet to add my commentary.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Honestly who is going to change their mind on this I'm sure nobody here will this is a horrible waste of time.

True.
Give us a topic to discuss.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I know the hurricane season is still some months out put so far all th ingrediants are coming together for a bad/active hurricane season.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:


You may have a point there.

There once was a saying that, 'You should be careful when you argue with a fool so that he is not arguing with one too.'




Honestly who is going to change their mind on this I'm sure nobody here will this is a horrible waste of time.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting Ossqss:


If so, then :)

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



SHHHHH!!! :)
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting HaloReachFan:


This is the most pointless waste of time ever it really is and I'm indulging them in it.


You may have a point there.

There once was a saying that, 'You should be careful when you argue with a fool so that he is not arguing with one too.'


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


But apparently if something is peer reviewed then it means it is law. According to JFLORIDA


If so, then :)

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

"I can't tell you how many times I've been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It's one thing to engage and refute. But it's not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."

- John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting pottery:

Really?


link?
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting twincomanche:
Been gone 24 hours, argument rages on, no sign of consensus, Yawn.

Any weather out there?


This is the most pointless waste of time ever it really is and I'm indulging them in it.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Neither is anything I see posted from you people.

Really?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 225 - 175

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.