Another amazingly snowy winter for the U.S.

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:18 PM GMT on February 11, 2011

Share this Blog
6
+

As northeast Oklahoma and northwest Arkansas dig out from the two feet of snow dumped this winter's latest epic snowstorm, it's time to summarize how remarkable the snows of the past two winters have been. So far this winter, the Northeast U.S. has seen three Category 3 (major) or higher snow storms on the Northeast Snowfall Impact (NESIS) scale. This scale, which rates Northeast snowstorms by the area affected by the snowstorm, the amount of snow, and the number of people living in the path of the storm, runs from Category 1 (Notable) to Category 5 (Crippling.) This puts the winter of 2010 - 2011 in a tie for first place with the winters of 2009 - 2010 and 1960 - 1961 for most major Northeast snowstorms. All three of these winters had an extreme configuration of surface pressures over the Arctic and North Atlantic referred to as a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). In this situation, the band of winds that circles the North Pole weakens, allowing cold air to spill southwards into the mid-latitudes.

In the past twelve months, we've had six major Category 3 or stronger storms on the NESIS scale, by far the most major snowstorms in a 12-month period in the historical record. Going back to 1956, only one 12-month period had as many as four major snowstorms--during 1960 - 1961. New York City has seen three of its top-ten snowstorms and the two snowiest months in its 142-year history during the past 12 months--February 2010 (36.9") and January 2011 (36.0"). Philadelphia has seen four of its top-ten snowstorm in history the past two winters. The Midwest has not been left out of the action this year, either--the Groundhog's Day blizzard nailed Chicago with its 3rd biggest snowstorm on record. According to the National Climatic Data Center, December 2010 saw the 7th greatest U.S. snow extent for the month in the 45-year record, and January 2011 the 5th most. December 2009 had the greatest snow extent for the month in the 45-year record, January 2010 the 6th most, and February 2010 the 3rd most. Clearly, the snows of the past two winters in the U.S. have been truly extraordinary.


Figure 1. The six major Category 3 Northeast snowstorms of the past twelve months. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

A cold January in the U.S.
January 2011 was the coldest January in the contiguous U.S. since 1994, according to the National Climatic Data Center, and ranked as the 37th coldest January in the 117-year record. Despite the heavy snows in the Northeast U.S., January was the 9th driest January since 1895. This was largely due to the fact that the Desert Southwest was very dry, with New Mexico recording its driest January, and Arizona and Nevada their second driest.

A cold and record snowy winter (yet again!) in the U.S. does not prove or disprove the existence of climate change or global warming, as we must instead focus on global temperatures averaged over decades. Globally, January 2011 was the 11th warmest since 1880, but tied for the second coolest January of the past decade, according to NASA. NOAA has not yet released their stats for January. The cool-down in global temperatures since November 2010, which was the warmest November in the historical record, is largely due to the temporary cooling effect of the strong La Niña event occurring in the Eastern Pacific. This event has cooled a large portion of the surface waters in the Pacific, leading to a cooler global temperature.

Some posts of interest I've done on snow and climate change over the past year:

Hot Arctic-Cold Continents Pattern is back (December 2010)
The future of intense winter storms (March 2010)
Heavy snowfall in a warming world (February 2010)

Have a great weekend, everyone, and enjoy the coming warm-up, those of you in the eastern 2/3 of the country!

Jeff Masters

Snow and icicle sun (emilinetdd)
Snow and icicle sun
Cardinal City (dypepper)
Another exciting day for me, shooting the Cardinals in the Snow!
Cardinal City

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: 900 - 850

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 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Quoting cat5hurricane:

Then no one get's to go to jail, okay. Let's get through the night without any arrests. That's always been my goal afterall. lol

Backed into a corner cowering and the infamous mom references are made in a fleeing attempt at saving face.....How original!

LOL!!!


Well I almost brought your dad into this if that helps...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


How can you suggest that it isn't? If we can't get an accurate read on the history of our climate, how are we supposed to know how what we are experiencing now defers from "normal?"


True. But both graphs show us far warmer than we have been. You can scrutinize it all you want, but both graphs (and every other temperature graph I have ever seen in my life) indicate rapid warming.

Care to show me a graph suggesting other wise and I'll reconsider the fact that we are significantly warmer than we ever have been in the last ten thousand years.

Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, there is no reason to think that we are not significantly warmer than we ever have been.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Yea tom dont repeat um, just paraphrase them if you would.

thanks,

Ignore is best here. This is anti science on a new level. Next they be burning all the geology, biology and archeology books.


One can't ignore what they thrive on.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Quoting TomTaylor:


woah, let's not bring communism into this.

After all, I didn't drag your mom into this. lol

Then no one get's to go to jail, okay. Let's get through the night without any arrests. That's always been my goal afterall. lol

Backed into a corner cowering and the infamous mom references are made in a fleeing attempt at saving face.....How original!

LOL!!!
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Quick levi cover for um - lol

Thats scary - I mean we would no nothing about the planet if all we went on was direct observation.

YIPES - Bizzaro


According to some of the proxies that you cite often, the 100-year period temperature change of the 20th century is dwarfed by the temperature swings on similar time scales in the past.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Yea tom dont repeat um, just paraphrase them if you would.

thanks,

Ignore is best here. This is anti science on a new level. Next they be burning all the geology, biology and archeology books.

I think the case was made well enough by them.

At least the communists didn't censer science and lie about scientific reality. They did bad things in the USSR but they never got that bad.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


I don't. Maybe I wasn't around. Either way, I find Michael's posts (of nowadays) far more useful and contributing, than that of RecordSeason's.


I noticed that too. However, once again, I ask the question, is that really important?


How can you suggest that it isn't? If we can't get an accurate read on the history of our climate, how are we supposed to know how what we are experiencing now defers from "normal?"
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Quick levi cover for um - lol

Thats scary - I mean we would no nothing about the planet if all we went on was direct observation.

YIPES - Bizzaro
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Boy some people have been living in a cave for the last 100 years. You don't believe in climate proxies? lol..



I am skeptical when I see proxies that disagree on such a massive level as the ones being posted here on a daily basis. If they disagree so much, I have no reason to trust them. Paleoclimatological records have too many issues to count. One has to be skeptical when using them as an actual history.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Sure. History has many instances of communism at it's finest.

I'm gonna pass though, if that's cool. Thanx :)


woah, let's not bring communism into this.

After all, I didn't drag your mom into this. lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


People remember you being banned twice for worse, Michael.


I don't. Maybe I wasn't around. Either way, I find Michael's posts (of nowadays) far more useful and contributing, than that of RecordSeason's.

Quoting Levi32:


My ears perk up just looking at your graph and Michael's graph side by side:





They both show the same period, yet the trend evolution is completely different. The contradiction between the two graphs is appalling.

I noticed that too. However, once again, I ask the question, is that really important?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Boy some people have been living in a cave for the last 100 years. You don't believe in climate proxies? lol..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


So you mean we can't lock him up? damn.

sorry, I just don't see the point of listening to him, when he isn't listening to me already.

Sure. History has many instances of communism at it's finest.

I'm gonna pass though, if that's cool. Thanx :)
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Everybody should just ignore RecordSeason.

Well, he will probably get himself banned anyway, using words like BS (spelled out; which, BTW, he is full of).

Gee, I haven't heard that one yet?

How original Michael. Funny, cause you told me the same thing in Ricky Rood's blog earlier today when the momentum was in my favor.

No need to be a wet noodle, buddy. Were all just trying to figure out the climate like adults. (I hope).

But, then, here's the kicker, folks. He banned me from his blog. OH NO!!!!!

LOL!!
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
Quoting cat5hurricane:

What's the matter Tom? Your not like panicking or anything because he perhaps is a bit more versed on the subject?

No, wait! That's silly thinking. Who does that?

Different perspectives are what drives the blog. That's how our system works...and I'm glad we all have the freedom to express our different viewpoints. I would hate to live in a world where I'd be thrown in jail for not conforming to others, you know.

Afterall, I have to listen to you. But, I'm okay with that.

If you don't like or agree with what he is saying, try walking away. There's always the ignore button too.


So you mean we can't lock him up? damn.

sorry, I just don't see the point of listening to him, when he isn't listening to me already.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:

Are you serious right now?

Your posting just keeps getting worse, why don't you just quit while you're ahead (it's a figure of speech - you were never actually ahead though).

There is literally no reason at all to create an intelligent response to your post.

I've given you multiple and you just turn the other way.

Just stop.

What's the matter Tom? Your not like panicking or anything because he perhaps is a bit more versed on the subject?

No, wait! That's silly thinking. Who does that?

Different perspectives are what drives the blog. That's how our system works...and I'm glad we all have the freedom to express our different viewpoints. I would hate to live in a world where I'd be thrown in jail for not conforming to others, you know.

Afterall, I have to listen to you. But, I'm okay with that.

If you don't like or agree with what he is saying, try walking away. There's always the ignore button too.
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
Quoting TomTaylor:


Ah forget it, I got time.



Have you never heard of the little ice age? or the mideval warm period?

That graph is a composite of multiple graphs all showing the same basic trends.

To question the validity is pointless, UNLESS you can show me a graph showing some form of conflicting data. As far as I know there are none.




But does the validity of the graph even matter?

That's my question to you RecordSeason, why are you getting so upset with MichaelSTL's graph? Seen too many hockey stick graphs in your life? What's got you hung up, bud?


My ears perk up just looking at your graph and Michael's graph side by side:





They both show the same period, yet the trend evolution is completely different. The contradiction between the two graphs is appalling.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Everybody should just ignore RecordSeason.

Well, he will probably get himself banned anyway, using words like BS (spelled out; which, BTW, he is full of).


People remember you being banned twice for worse, Michael.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Quoting RecordSeason:


First you need to explain what magical tooth fairy gave you that data from 500 to 2000 years ago, 220 to 1720 years before any modern temperature scale was invented.


Let's pretend you know temperatures from 500 or 2000 years ago accurate to within 0.1c....haha, that's ridiculous. Pretend it would be.

I mean, you got no data,so you just fabricate some bullshit out of the air based on what? Not science, because "relatively modern" temperature scales weren't even invented then.

So where did you pull this crap from? Are you going to try to claim a fossil record or core sample can tell somebody the temperature to within a tenth of a degree Celsius? I hope you aren't dumb enough to try that one, because I can show some pretty obvious modern examples of how non-scientific that endeavour really is...After all, we have zoos and stuff where animals from all climates live in all climates, and microbes like diatoms and alga are usually even more adaptive than macroscopic organisms.

hey look everybody! John the Apostle apparently had a thermometer on Patmos in 90A.d., and so did Cleopatra in Egypt in 44b.c. Eric the Red obviously had digital thermometers, GPS, and a magnetic compass too!



As for your comments about CO2 vs the Solar Constant, you can try your tired psuedo-science some place else.

The audacity of these people to make up a "graph" of "world wide average temperature" across epochs when no such gauges or scales existed.

Can any of you people make a post without showing yourselves to be completely deceptive?

I mean, where did you get that crap? Did you make it up yourself? Or did you have help? Maybe you were just duped by somebody else because you believe everything without stopping to think about it?

Where is your magic fairy or time machine that gave you those world wide temperature readings you used to make that graph? Obviously you made a graph which presents itself as having at least 0.1C resolution, So let's see the data. Let's see the date and location of these thermometers and the people and organizations that operated them for the 1700+ years before they were even invented.

Everyone needs fair and equal access to these time traveling meteorologists and their records so that we can all have the "facts," instead of relying on "middle men".


Ah forget it, I got time.



Have you never heard of the little ice age? or the mideval warm period?

That graph is a composite of multiple graphs all showing the same basic trends.

To question the validity is pointless, UNLESS you can show me a graph showing some form of conflicting data. As far as I know there are none.




But does the validity of the graph even matter?

That's my question to you RecordSeason, why are you getting so upset with MichaelSTL's graph? Seen too many hockey stick graphs in your life? What's got you hung up, bud?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Everybody should just ignore RecordSeason.

Well, he will probably get himself banned anyway, using words like BS (spelled out; which, BTW, he is full of).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting TomTaylor:


Record Season, and all you other denier's look at this graph please.

Enlighten yourselves


Single-handedly shows that greater concentrations of CO2 absorb greater amounts of radiation.

This graph literally proves anthropogenic heat contribution to the global system.


I don't remember where I got that (I took it from the links in my blog), but here is a PDF with close to the same graphs. Also, while it is true that the effects of CO2 decrease as you add more, the atmosphere never saturates until it reaches 100% CO2, hence the stated doubling for a given temperature rise (and even after that, the atmosphere itself can become denser, like on Venus, which BTW, should be really cool based on its albedo).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting RecordSeason:


First you need to explain what magical tooth fairy gave you that data from 500 to 2000 years ago, 220 to 1720 years before any modern temperature scale was invented.


Let's pretend you know temperatures from 500 or 2000 years ago accurate to within 0.1c....haha, that's ridiculous. Pretend it would be.

I mean, you got no data,so you just fabricate some bullshit out of the air based on what? Not science, because "relatively modern" temperature scales weren't even invented then.

So where did you pull this crap from? Are you going to try to claim a fossil record or core sample can tell somebody the temperature to within a tenth of a degree Celsius? I hope you aren't dumb enough to try that one, because I can show some pretty obvious modern examples of how non-scientific that endeavour really is...After all, we have zoos and stuff where animals from all climates live in all climates, and microbes like diatoms and alga are usually even more adaptive than macroscopic organisms.

hey look everybody! John the Apostle apparently had a thermometer on Patmos in 90A.d., and so did Cleopatra in Egypt in 44b.c. Eric the Red obviously had digital thermometers, GPS, and a magnetic compass too!



As for your comments about CO2 vs the Solar Constant, you can try your tired psuedo-science some place else.

The audacity of these people to make up a "graph" of "world wide average temperature" across epochs when no such gauges or scales existed.

Can any of you people make a post without showing yourselves to be completely deceptive?

I mean, where did you get that crap? Did you make it up yourself? Or did you have help? Maybe you were just duped by somebody else because you believe everything without stopping to think about it?

Where is your magic fairy or time machine that gave you those world wide temperature readings you used to make that graph? Obviously you made a graph which presents itself as having at least 0.1C resolution, So let's see the data. Let's see the date and location of these thermometers and the people and organizations that operated them for the 1700 years before they were even invented.

Everyone needs fair and equal access to these time traveling meteorologists and their records so that we can all have the "facts," instead of relying on "middle men".

Are you serious right now?

Your posting just keeps getting worse, why don't you just quit while you're ahead (it's a figure of speech - you were never actually ahead though).

There is literally no reason at all to create an intelligent response to your post.

I've given you multiple and you just turn the other way.

Just stop.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Hopefully this continues so the nonsense about global cooling stops (of course it won't - they will just blame El Nino for the warming, ignoring trends):



Sounds like you are blaming ENSO yourself.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Bingiza has not intensified much since gaining an eye earlier today. Upwelling of cold water from being stalled out for this long is likely the main inhibitor, and is to be expected with ocean heat content as low as it is east of Madagascar. They are likely to escape a major storm if it remains this disorganized.

Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Pic taken from MichaelSTL...



If anyone was curious about that cool sst spot right off the coast of Central America (or maybe the southern border of Mexico), it's caused by Tehuano_winds, causing upwelling.

The cimss satellite blog had a cool entry about it today:

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/dat e/2011/02/10

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Did someone think it was direct energy from combustion that was driving climate change?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:

But what you posted was "Study finds Alaska summer temperatures to have been higher than today during the last 3000 years." I know that that was the WUWT take on the article but it is certainly at odds with the disclaimer from the authors. Sorry, but you and Tony seem to play fast and loose with the facts a whole lot.



No. I posted a statement of what the study found, because that is what the study found.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Quoting TaylorSelseth:


"Humans are too puny to affect the climate" is a very old Denier talking point, it is Argument to Credulity and nothing more.

In fact, humans have been affecting the climate ever since we started wet-rice farming, read Plows, Plagues, and Peoples.


And it isn't like, given the current human population (near 7 billion), we have much room per person either, regardless of the claims that cities only take up so-and-so space and there is so much open space:

Can “Insignificant” Humans Alter the Earth’s Vast Atmosphere?

Let’s do a little simple math. The surface area of the Earth is 197,000,000 square miles. The World’s population is 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.) This yields 33.51+ people per square mile. (Includes oceans) Our surface area allotment per person is a square a little over 912 feet by 912 feet, and our per capita atmospheric allotment is the air above this square.


As noted, includes oceans, not just land, and don't forget that we need to grow food, obtain energy and raw materials, factories, housing, and all of that in that 885 foot square (with the current population, and divide by 3.3 if you want to only count land) - and then allow space for all of the other species on Earth.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting MichaelSTL:

Click to enlarge


Record Season, and all you other denier's look at this graph please.

Enlighten yourselves


Single-handedly shows that greater concentrations of CO2 absorb greater amounts of radiation.

This graph literally proves anthropogenic heat contribution to the global system.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's not energy released from consuming fossil fuels causing more greenhouse warming. It's the infrared radiation the CO2 and methane released from using fossil fuels, natural gas leaks, agricultural practices, and deforestation. That's basic as it gets.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Click to enlarge
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Bingiza, what a cool name lol

Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Incoming solar radiation, less reflected: 235 w/m2
Back radiation from greenhouse gasses: 324 w/m2

Conclusion: Earth freezes over without greenhouse gasses.

Increase in CO2 since preindustrial times: 280 -> 391 ppm = 39 percent.

Simple calculations and measurements confirm what the effects are (we can calculate the blackbody temperature of the Earth, which is much lower than the actual temperature, and measure how much IR a given amount of CO2 lets through).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting MichaelSTL:


LOL, you are comparing the energy used by humans to solar energy! Greenhouse gasses are not like that!


"Humans are too puny to affect the climate" is a very old Denier talking point, it is Argument to Credulity and nothing more.

In fact, humans have been affecting the climate ever since we started wet-rice farming, read Plows, Plagues, and Peoples.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wow, Bingiza is looking pretty rough. upwelling must be affecting it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RecordSeason:
Anyway, humans aren't causing this stuff.

We would need like Star Trek or Star Wars level technology before we could begin to manipulate weather or climate on these scales.


Solar Constant 174 petawatts
Humans: 16 terawatts

Insignificant.

174000 / 16 = factor of 10875

A fluctuation of 1% in the solar constant would be 1.74 petawatts, which is still 108 times larger than the 16 terawatts humans used in 2010.

Compared to that, humans are insects.

Your stubbornness is astounding. It's as though a teacher just taught a student that 2 x 4 = 8, when the student thought 2 x 4 = 6. And then the student goes back and says, "Anyway, 2 x 4 = 6"

If you really don't want to listen, fine, but please don't try and sucker the rest of the poor folks on the blog, it's annoying.

And your energy level stuff is completely irrelevant.

Not to mention your insect analogy is horribly flawed because insects play such a crucial role in the environment. They may seem small, but they play some of the biggest roles in the environment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hopefully this continues so the nonsense about global cooling stops (of course it won't - they will just blame El Nino for the warming, ignoring trends):

Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting RecordSeason:
Anyway, humans aren't causing this stuff.

We would need like Star Trek or Star Wars level technology before we could begin to manipulate weather or climate on these scales.


Solar Constant 174 petawatts
Humans: 16 terawatts

Insignificant.

174000 / 16 = factor of 10875

A fluctuation of 1% in the solar constant would be 1.74 petawatts, which is still 108 times larger than the 16 terawatts humans used in 2010.

Compared to that, humans are insects.


LOL, you are comparing the energy used by humans to solar energy! Greenhouse gasses are not like that!
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Anyway, humans aren't causing this stuff.

We would need like Star Trek or Star Wars level technology before we could begin to manipulate weather or climate on these scales.


Solar Constant 174 petawatts
Humans: 16 terawatts

Insignificant.

174000 / 16 = factor of 10875

A fluctuation of 1% in the solar constant would be 1.74 petawatts, which is still 108 times larger than the 16 terawatts humans used in 2010.

Compared to that, humans are insects.
Member Since: June 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2336
Here's something interesting:

Great Oxygenation Event

The rising oxygen levels may have wiped out a huge portion of the Earth's anaerobic inhabitants at the time. From their perspective it was a catastrophe (hence the name). Cyanobacteria were essentially responsible for what was likely the largest extinction event in Earth's history. Additionally the free oxygen combined with atmospheric methane, triggering the Huronian glaciation, possibly the longest snowball Earth episode ever.


I guess that deniers think that humans are less significant than lowly bacteria (BTW, while the effect on GHGs and temperatures was the opposite, this only strengthens the case for their importance in global temperature, as also concluded here; remove all CO2, and the Earth freezes over, as it did then, although at least solar irradiance is about 30% higher now so we don't need as much - but of course that makes the situation right now even worse with respect to adding more CO2).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Madagascar may have caught a lucky break:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:



Stop confusing yourself, and quit trying to confuse others.

Just because it has happened in the past by nature's means, doesn't mean we can't have an impact.

After all, we are a part of nature, are we not?


Indeed:

Coal Fires Ignited by Volcanoes May Have Caused the Permian Extinction
An extinction of 95% of marine species and 70% of land species

Previous researchers have suggested massive volcanic eruptions through coal beds in Siberia would generate significant greenhouse gases causing run away global warming.


The Earth DOES NOT care where greenhouse gasses come from, whether from human activity or like the above!

Indeed:

Emissions Similar to Coal-Fired Power Plants

"We saw layers with abundant organic matter and Hamed immediately determined that they were layers of coal-ash, exactly like that produced by modern coal burning power plants," says Beauchamp.

Sanei adds: "Our discovery provides the first direct confirmation for coal ash during this extinction as it may not have been recognized before."
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting RecordSeason:



Yeah I know...

"Only" a VEI 7...

and

Little Ice Age: Mankind is insignificant, really

"Day after tomorrow" anyone?

New York Harbor froze over. Great lakes frozen over during the summer. Armies could march across the baltic and various rivers in Europe.

yah...humans don't make this stuff happen, nor cease from happening. This stuff is a lot bigger than pathetic man.


New York Harbor Froze Over...

That is salt water. The freezing point of salt water is as low as -6f, or -21C...Sea water is probably more like 20f though.



Stop confusing yourself, and quit trying to confuse others.

Just because it has happened in the past by nature's means, doesn't mean we don't have an impact, because we certainly do have an impact on our climate and environment.

And, we are a part of nature, are we not?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
856. JRRP
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


So tell me what magical cycle has caused the increase at the end here (or if known, scientists are suppressing the evidence for ulterior motives).

That is what separates deniers from rationalists...
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Seems we all have our own journeys !

Make it a good one! :) Gnight............ out.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
Actually, no. We don't really know what exactly caused changes to occur outside the historical record, do we? We have evidence the cycles happened, but only theories about what triggered the change. In that sense, the AGW theorist is just as valid in his assumptions as you are. The existence of cyclical change, a wave action, if you will, does not correlate in any way to the CAUSE of that change.

What you attribute to a change from very cool to very warm as part of a natural earth-cycle may be a series of abrupt shifts caused by unknown unnatural events.

The point about all this - and this has been my point all along - is that we still don't have enough evidence one way or another to attribute CAUSE. That's why I think all this yada yada about whether GW is AGW or just naturally cyclic warming is moot. I have seen some evidence that world temps have been increasing since the 1850s, more or less. I think it's more important to preserve and adapt rather than to nitpick about whose sources are peer-reviewed.


Um, right

So all of those scientists know absolutely NOTHING and are just full of (a bad word that gets you banned, or at least flagged if you post it)!

There is a very good reason why the last IPCC report concludes that warming is virtually certain to be due to human activities (and the evidence has only gotten even stronger since then; e.g. solar influence was likely WAY overstated, not that it was much before)... And we can find out what caused climate change in the past - there are only a FEW factors that can change the radiative energy balance (greenhouse gasses being one)! For one, do you even know what a Milankovitch cycle is (hint: it caused the ice ages, and would be on its way to the next one)?

Global Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling

Humans and climate change can take credit for a much warmer Arctic, according to new research

Based on its long-term orbit, Earth should be heading into an ice age. But instead of continuing to cool%u2014as it had been for at least the past 2,000 years%u2014the Arctic has started to warm. And the reason is humans' impact on the composition of the atmosphere, new research suggests.


PS: the Little Ice Age is nothing more than the coolest part of that natural cooling trend, until human GHG emissions started to overcome it around 1850 (and agricultural practices actually started affecting GHGs thousands of years ago, so it should be even cooler).

Sounds like you have been listening to the wrong people, you know, like Bastardi, Spencer and Watts.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
No. The freezing point of oceanic salt water is -2C / 28F

Quoting RecordSeason:



Yeah I know...

"Only" a VEI 7...

and

Little Ice Age: Mankind is insignificant, really

"Day after tomorrow" anyone?

New York Harbor froze over. Great lakes frozen over during the summer. Armies could march across the baltic and various rivers in Europe.

yah...humans don't make this stuff happen, nor cease from happening. This stuff is a lot bigger than pathetic man.


New York Harbor Froze Over...

That is salt water. The freezing point of salt water is as low as -6f, or -21C...Sea water is probably more like 20f though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm going Skiing in Colorado. Leaving tomorrow morning. I sure hope AGW hasn't killed the slopes for me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


Tambora, Krakatoa...hehehe

check these bad boys out (if you haven't already)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano



Yeah I know...

"Only" a VEI 7...

and

Little Ice Age: Mankind is insignificant, really

"Day after tomorrow" anyone?

New York Harbor froze over. Great lakes frozen over during the summer. Armies could march across the baltic and various rivers in Europe.

yah...humans don't make this stuff happen, nor cease from happening. This stuff is a lot bigger than pathetic man.


New York Harbor Froze Over...

That is salt water. The freezing point of salt water is as low as -6f, or -21C...Sea water is probably more like 20f though.
Member Since: June 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2336

Viewing: 900 - 850

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 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog 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

Light Rain
56 °F
Light Rain