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

If global warming is occurring, why was the winter of 2007-2008 so cold and snowy?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:38 PM GMT on March 14, 2008

The planet was much snowier and warmer than usual during the winter of 2007-2008, according to statistics released today by the National Climatic Data Center. Snow cover extent over the Northern Hemisphere during the period December 2007 - February 2008 was the fourth greatest on record, and was the greatest on record for January. Satellite-derived snow cover records extend back to 1967. Some regions of the Middle East, such as Baghdad, Iraq saw their first snow in living memory, and seasonal snowfall records were broken in Wisconsin and a few places in the Northeastern U.S. Surprisingly, the winter also ranked much above average in temperature--it was the 16th warmest December through February period in the 128-year global record. This puts the winter of 2007-2008 in the warmest 13% of all winters. Temperatures this winter were a bit cooler than recent winters because of an ongoing strong La Niña event in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, which has dramatically cooled the ocean surface waters. By one measure (the surface pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti), February 2008 was the strongest February La Niña event on record. The last time we had a winter this cool was during 2000-2001, which also happened to be the last time we had a major winter La Niña event.

Figure 1. Departure of temperature from average for the winter of 2007-2008. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

A normal winter for the U.S.
December 2007 through February 2008 was about average in the contiguous U.S.--the 54th coolest winter on record in the 113 year period of record. The average temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th Century mean. It was the 18th wettest December-February in the 1895-2008 record. New York experienced its wettest winter on record, and the states of Colorado, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Vermont experienced their second-wettest winter on record. Only the South received below normal levels of precipitation, mostly due to a dry winter in Texas.

All time winter snowfall records have already been set in some portions of the Northeast U.S. and Wisconsin. As of March 12, Madison, WI had accumulated 92 inches of snow, smashing the previous seasonal snowfall record of 76.1 inches (193.3 cm) of snow in the winter of 1978-1979. Two locations in the Northeast have set new winter snowfall records, and more records will fall if an average amount of snow falls in March. By the end of February, new snowfall records for the season-to-date were also set in both Telluride and Aspen, Colorado.

An exceptionally warm winter in Northern Europe and Asia, cold in Central Asia
Northern Asia and northern Europe experienced an exceptionally warm winter, with Sweden and Finland recording their warmest winters ever, and Norway, its second warmest. Conversely, Tajikistan recorded its coldest winter in 30 years, and heavy snows in Kazakhstan caused severe flooding when they melted. Snow storms and cold weather in China this winter killed 129 people and did over $21 billion in damage.

Why did we see a cool winter, if global warming is occurring?
It is important to understand the difference between weather and climate. Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get. What we experience in one particular season or year is "weather". Weather has a large variation from year to year, with cool seasons and years mixed in with warms ones. "Climate" is the weather measured on scales of tens of years or longer. One cool winter or year is not an indication that the climate is cooling back to normal. The climate is warming, and unless we see a series of several years of cool conditions, this year's cool winter merely represents a normal fluctuation of the weather. Relatively cool weather is to be expected globally during a strong La Niña event in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and relatively warm weather is expected during an El Niño event. We shouldn't expect to see record warmth for the globe unless an El Niño event is occurring.

Why did we see record snows this winter, if global warming is occurring?
Beware of global warming skeptics trumpeting record snowfalls this winter as an excuse to doubt that global warming is occurring. One should primarily look at global temperatures on a scale of decades to judge the validity of global warming. Dr. Ricky Rood, who writes our Climate Change blog, put it this way in his current blog, Creeping Onset of Spring and in an earlier blog, Water, water, water:

This year has been very snowy in the northern hemisphere. That it is snowy does not suggest that it is colder. If it gets warmer, it does not mean that we no longer see freezing temperatures in places like Michigan. If it gets warmer there is more water in the atmosphere, and when there is precipitation there will be more precipitation, and if it is below freezing, then that precipitation will be ice and snow. The high mountains near the coast, like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada would expect more snow. This is also true for the high altitudes parts of Greenland and Antarctica. From a climate point of view it is more important to look at snow cover in the late winter and early spring. Is the snow melting earlier?

Figure 2. Average February arctic sea ice coverage as observed by satellites between 1979 and 2008. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Arctic sea ice recovers a bit
It will be interesting to see if this year's heavy Northern Hemisphere snow cover melts earlier than usual, as this will have a big impact on the annual Arctic sea ice melt. We're starting off with more ice surface area in the Arctic than in the past four years--February 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent was greater than each of the previous four years, thanks to cooler than usual temperatures over much of the Canadian Arctic. However, this was still the fifth lowest ice extent on record for the month of February, and 8% below its extent in 1979 when satellite measurements began, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. February was the third straight month that a new monthly minimum Arctic sea ice record was not set, following a string of five months in a row where monthly records were set. The extra sea ice extent will help to reduce the amount of melting this summer, but this effect will probably be overshadowed by the fact that natural wind patterns have forced a large amount of thick, multi-year ice out of the Arctic this winter. This has left much of the sea ice very thin, making it very vulnerable to melting. For the first time on record, the edge of thin first-year ice has pushed beyond the North Pole. IF we get another relatively warm and sunny summer in the Arctic in 2008, we will likely see Arctic sea ice loss surpassing last year's astounding collapse.

Annual WeatherDance contest ready for registration!
Armchair forecasters, now's your chance to shine! WeatherDance, based on teams in the men's and women's NCAA basketball tournaments, allows players to predict which team's city will be hotter or colder on game day in each round of the Big Dance. Beginning March 17, players can make their forecasts at the Weather Dance Web site at: www.weatherdance.org. The site will be updated with cities promptly after NCAA seeding announcements. Team selection occurs March 16 for men and March 17 for women. First round Weather Dance selections must be entered by 11:59 p.m. EST March 19. Players can register now and receive periodic reminders as the game progresses.

"Officially, Weather Dance began as a class project to get students involved in weather forecasting, but we kept it around because it got popular. People think they can do better forecasting than the meteorologists. Well, here's their shot!" said Perry Samson, WeatherDance creator, co-founder of the The Weather Underground, Inc., and Professor in the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences at the University of Michigan.

This is the third year for the game. Last year more than 2,000 people played. Most play merely for the thrill, but many science teachers involve their classes as part of meteorology units. The winning teacher will receive an invitation and $500 to join the Texas Tech/University of Michigan Storm Chasing team this spring for a day of tornado chasing. Other winners will receive a Weather Underground umbrella or a copy of the book "Extreme Weather," by Christopher C. Burt.

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: 74 - 24

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

74. cchsweatherman
11:29 AM EDT on March 14, 2008
Will people stop bickering back and forth about global warming and focus on the current weather situation where we could have a possible severe weather outbreak occurring in Texas and the Southeast by early-to-mid week? You guys are acting like two children fighting over a lollipop right now. It's sickening how mature adults will argue like that. There is one other thing I'd like to say. There is evidence that supports the skeptics point of view as well as the advocates point of view. Noone can say who is right or wrong in this matter, so stop arguing that you are the one that is correct. You can present information that supports your ideas, but don't constantly argue against other's ideas.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
73. tornadofan
3:23 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Seems like the solution is obvious - build more dams!

That would help create some clean energy as well, right?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
72. lindenii
3:22 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Do the believers in global warming really think the rest of us are so ignorant that they could have the timerity to say that this winter was the result of global warming, and then expect us to mindlessly believe such nonsense?

Doesn't anyone see the silly chidlike nature that argument? No matter what the weather...ITS GLOBAL WARMING???? Perhaps its time for someone to go back to school. Those who have mentioned a religious-like component may be right after all. I remember back when there were bumper stickers that read 'If God said it, I believe it.' Except with the global warming believers you can substitute the words global warming. 'If global warming says so, I believe it.'??? Is this what our new educational system has brought down upon us?

Taking data generated from extremely accurate equipment and attempting to then extrapolate that data and interminge it with data gathered by less accurate equipment is wrong and I believe deliberately being done to support a politically motivated theory.

Global warming is not the cause of this winter, the weather is the cause of the winter. GLOBAL WARMING AND GLOBAL COOLING ARE SIMPLY DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.

Has anyone taken the data from this new generation of equipment and lopped off the digits that exceed the older equipment and compared the two? No, not rounding...lopping, the extra digits have no business having participation in the data comparison. If the older quipment is accurate to two digits, then the newer equipment with four digit accuracy must have those two extra digits lopped off...gone...never existed, digit for digit no more no less.

atmoaggie, what say you about such a digit by digit comparison? Has it been done, can it be done?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
71. atmoaggie
3:14 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Cooler? Suppose we used 1881-1910 instead... it would obviously make it look a lot warmer than it really is (or if we used 2005 as the 0 mark, all other years would be "colder" than average. The real thing to be concerned about is the absolute average temperature, which is independent of the base period - if it rises, then warming is occurring.

And, it is clear that cycles like the AMO, PDO, etc aren't the only drivers of global temperatures (some think that the "cooling" - really, a stabilization after a short peak around 1945 - in the 1950s-70s was mainly caused by aerosol pollution).

1881-1910: STL, that would be nonsensical.

2005, yes, all years would be relatively cool. I think you are getting the point of the anomaly discussion.

Absolute average temp: Well, unfortunately that is a little tougher. We only have temps from ice cores, vinyard proxies, and limited records that represent the west and north (US, western Europe, etc.) Do these really compare as apple to apples to our current IR satellite measurements?

Do those pinpoint locations and "Gee, the grapes were 1 millimeter smaller in the Rhine valley, the temp must have been ..." really give us a base line worth comparing? No. That is why the NCDC is using 1961 for a start.

Yes, the aerosol pollution likely does have an effect, I think the magnitude is as of yet undecided.

The entire point was to recognize the limitation. To recognize why they are using that year for a start. And to recognize exactly what the anomaly plot is capable of telling us and what it is not.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
68. Patrap
10:12 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
Some cant Handle da truth, They like cows to the Barn.
Chew the grass,graze in the Sun..and turn in Oblivious to the Insanity creeping into their Lives and wallets.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
67. TampaSpin
3:13 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
62. HouseofGryffindor 3:11 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
^ See Michael Moore's Farenheit 911... very good documentary.

House you gotta be kidding me..what are you drinking......lol
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
64. TampaSpin
3:10 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
PatRap i think you just tried to blast me a few days ago for trying to impose political powers on others on this blog that you said was a weather blog. What are you doing now? Hum....
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
63. atmoaggie
3:08 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
59. Patrap,

LMAO, you are in a groove today.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
61. Michfan
3:10 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Oh god can we keep the rhetoric at bay for once?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
60. Patrap
10:10 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
Sealed with a Kiss..

Is that Brut yer wearing?

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
59. Patrap
10:07 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
Seems my Insight wasnt far off this week, Checked the closing price of a BBL of La. Sweet Crude yesterday anyone?

18. Patrap 2:09 PM CDT on March 11, 2008

Look, When I came into office,Oil was what? 31-32 dollars a Barrel?

We got them by the nads Sheik, hell,they dont even remember that 15 of 911 Hijackers were Saudi's.
We diverted that with the Saddam/Iraqi thing, they dont even care.

We gonna go for 110$ a BBl this week. I'll have my peeps call yer peeps..
Lovely new Hair dye your using, it dont even look Fake attall..
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
56. atmoaggie
2:58 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
49. MisterPerfect 2:57 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
below its extent in 1979 when satellite measurements began

Along with that, I have to stroke to "anomaly-with-respect-what" genie bottle once more.

In the NCDC plot in Dr Master's blog, we thankfully have the baseline details: "with respect to a 1961-1990 base period" If that period was during a cooler cycle (and we all know it was...AMO, among others) than the temperature anomaly will almost always show anomalously warm current conditions...no kidding. So? These things do not convince me, as per my earlier post.

Sure, it is an interesting plot, but...

It is nothing more than a comparison of current temps to those measured primarily during the most recent cooler phase of our cycles. Which, is a great thing, do not misunderstand. It is not some sort of proof of anything requiring energy facism for a reaction.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
55. MisterPerfect
2:59 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
I don't listen to kings telling me what to do, I'd much rather follow a satellite from the 1970's. Its the word.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
53. Michfan
2:58 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
48. atmoaggie 2:57 PM GMT on March 14, 2008 Hide this comment.
42. Pat, I have to hope that he would not have done that if the economy were strong. He must be hoping for a bit of a rebound. The new rules would have cost a lot of industrial businesses a lot of money.

I think that is important to note because environmental policy has almost always followed the economic cycle of this country. It would be political suicide unfortunately for any president to allow something to pass that would cost so much money. Politics will almost always trump the EPA unfortunately.

Take into consideration though that we as a country do have some of the most stringent environmental policies in the world in comparison to others. We could be a hell of alot worse.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
51. Patrap
9:58 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
Hes an Oil MAn..the rules would Lower consumption.Thats His position in fact.Period.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
49. MisterPerfect
2:56 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
below its extent in 1979 when satellite measurements began

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
48. atmoaggie
2:55 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
42. Pat, I have to hope that he would not have done that if the economy were strong. He must be hoping for a bit of a rebound. The new rules would have cost a lot of industrial businesses a lot of money.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
47. MisterPerfect
2:55 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
What I'm saying is conclusions in the year 2008 are based on data from the 1970's...at least the blog topic is implying it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
45. MisterPerfect
2:53 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
what's to link, Dr. M has it right up yonder
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
43. Patrap
9:49 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
LSU Earth Scan Lab Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
42. Patrap
9:46 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
Another sad fact of the arrogance of a Failed Presidency..

"Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private advocacy group. "It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference."
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
41. TampaSpin
2:45 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
The Dow is down 137 this morning..where is the bottom going to land........
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
40. atmoaggie
2:45 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
The LIMO is a Green Saturn

LOL, really!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
39. TampaSpin
2:42 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
IM Confused my day got really longer on Sunday morning i woke up and it was still dark outside at the same time it was light Saturday morning. What the heck happened. Did someone damn the Atlantic........LMAO
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
38. Patrap
9:41 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
We will arrive in a Limo at Noon to Parasols. The LIMO is a Green Saturn..atmoaggie
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
37. TampaSpin
2:39 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
34. HouseofGryffindor 2:39 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
I highly recommend everyone watching Al Gore's documentary The Inconvenient Truth. Its one of the best documentary films I've ever seen.

House, remember he discovered the internet also.....lol

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
36. atmoaggie
2:38 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
So does that mean our days have been getting longer since the Appalachains begin eroding?

All together now, everyone go on vacation to Mexico, scoop up some dirt and go deposit it in central Pennsylvania. SAVE OUR 24 HOURS!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
35. Patrap
9:40 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
White House Played Role in Smog Rule

WASHINGTON (AP) %u2014 The Environmental Protection Agency agreed to weaken an important part of its new smog requirements after being told at the last minute that President Bush preferred a less stringent approach, according to government documents.

They show tense exchanges between the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget in the days before the smog air quality standard was announced Wednesday.

Changes directed by the White House were made only hours before the agency issued the regulation. The late activity forced the EPA to delay the announcement for five hours.

The disagreement concerned the amount of protection from ozone, or smog, that should be afforded wildlife, farmlands, parks and open spaces.

This "public welfare" or "secondary" smog standard is separate from a decision to tighten the smog requirements for human health, which the EPA decided to do by reducing the allowable concentrations of ozone in the air from 80 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion.

The revised human health standard has gotten all the attention. But the most contentious fighting involved the public welfare standard, according to papers inserted in the EPA regulatory docket Thursday.

The memos and documents indicate that EPA officials had wanted to make the public welfare standard more stringent than the health standard, although still not as protective as some scientists had recommended.

But the White House insisted on making both standards identical, according to the documents. When EPA officials balked, the issue went to Bush, who sided with his budget office.

The White House defended Bush's action.

"This is not a weakening of regs (regulations) or standards," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday. "But it was an effort to make the standards consistent. There's no question we have an interest in how federal regs impact communities."

Fratto said the new standards are the "most stringent smog standards in history" and that communities will have a hard time meeting them. He described the area where Bush intervened as 'a technical matter' and said he acted on the advice of the Justice Department.

The White House's involvement was first reported by The Washington Post.

Susan Dudley, head of OMB's Information and Regulatory Affairs, alluded to Bush's involvement in a last- minute memo to EPA chief Stephen Johnson.

"The president has concluded that consistent with administration policy, added protection should be afford to public welfare by strengthening the secondary ozone standard and setting it to be identical to the new primary standard," she wrote. It should not be weaker or more stronger than the human health standard, the OMB insisted.

Although the memo was dated Thursday, it was faxed to the EPA on Wednesday, hours before the agency announced the rule. Parts of the memo were included in the rule's preamble posted on the EPA Web site.
"Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private advocacy group. "It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference."

Dudley, in a March 6 memo, had questioned the EPA's justification for have a stronger smog requirement for public welfare than for human health.

The "public welfare" %u2014 or secondary %u2014 standard is fashioned in a way to protect against long-term harm to the environment. The limits on ozone under this standard are likely to have more impact on rural areas than urban centers.

Environmentalists and ecologists have argued that the standard should be more stringent than the human health ozone standard.

Last year the EPA staff and a scientific advisory panel on clean air concluded that protection of forests, agricultural lands and the ecosystem requires a "substantially different" ozone standard from the one for protecting human health.

In recent weeks the Agriculture Department has weighed in against making the public welfare ozone standard tougher. The department expressed concerns about the impact additional pollution controls might have on agriculture and development of biofuels, especially ethanol.

The department made its concerns known to OMB. EPA officials said the need was clear for a different standard for public welfare and that drifting ozone pollution has been found to cause "adverse effects" on agricultural crops, forests and vegetation.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
33. atmoaggie
2:36 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Dang, Pat, if I could get the day off, I would come join you. I've never been there, but heard it was good.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
32. Michfan
2:26 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Anyone can swallow the data with an objective mind and come to their own conclusions. I don't think anyone is advocating not doing anything to curb our polluting ways in this blog. What is at question is just how much of global warming is due some of the things that we have done to the atmosphere and how much is purely cyclical. There is not enough data to conclusively prove either one. Yet despite that there are still many things that we can and need to do to protect the environment as a whole, not just in relation to global warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
31. TampaSpin
2:32 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
27. Caffinehog 2:30 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Yes, the dams lower sea level. Since most are at high latitudes, they also speed up the earth's rotation.


A day is actually 0.000008 seconds shorter than if we didn't have the dams!

What a LOL

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
30. Patrap
9:33 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
Your White House at work as per usual...

House Chairman Subpoenas EPA on Waiver

By ERICA WERNER – 16 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee chairman issued a subpoena Thursday to force the Environmental Protection Agency to turn over 196 internal documents about its decision to deny California permission to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

At least 16 other states were also blocked by the EPA denial from adopting California's tailpipe controls.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who chairs the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, announced the subpoena after negotiating unsuccessfully to get EPA to turn over unredacted versions of the documents on the waiver decision.

"These documents must be provided to the committee because they are relevant to the examination of the administration's decision to reject California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles," Waxman said. "The desire to conceal embarrassing facts is not a valid legal basis for withholding these documents from the committee."

An EPA spokesman did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Waxman is also still seeking hundreds of communications between EPA and the White House and Justice Department over the waiver decision. He had set a Wednesday deadline for EPA to set a schedule to produce them. Although EPA did not meet that deadline, negotiations on those documents were ongoing, Waxman spokeswoman Karen Lightfoot said.

Waxman and other Democrats have accused EPA of denying California the greenhouse gas waiver for political, not scientific, reasons. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has denied that, but he has refused under congressional questioning to say whether the White House advised him against the waiver.

The Bush administration has opposed mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions like those California wants to pursue.

California's law would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.

In denying California the Clean Air Act waiver needed to implement its law, Johnson said Congress' new fuel efficiency standards are a better way to go because they provide a national approach. California isn't alone in suffering the effects of global warming and so doesn't need its own solution, Johnson said.

Thursday's was the second subpoena Waxman has issued to EPA over Johnson's December decision. Waxman earlier subpoenaed an internal power point presentation that, like other documents that have emerged, showed that top career staff at EPA advised Johnson in favor of granting the waiver.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
29. atmoaggie
2:32 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
If some of you guys are that convinced that enough of the questions have been completely and objectively answered about AGW, please do the "right" thing and:
1. Move to a 600 sq ft flat within walking distance of school/job.
2. Sell the Tahoe...walk/bike everywhere
3. Tell your loved ones you/they will have to walk/bike to meet up, regardless of how far it is.
4. Spend all your money installing a geothermal well for heating/cooling...or freeze/sweat
5. Spend the rest on solar panels...we will all miss you here when the skies are overcast for 3 days+, but we will know why you aren't here.
6. Install 2 sets of water pipes, one potable, one gray (for everything but drinking)

I only mention this all because there are some that are thoroughly certain consensus has been reached outside of a few outliers, that the real questions have been completely answered, that the whole truth has already been shared, that the medium for that truth has been completely objective, that wiki is somehow not influenced by mainstream media with a fear agenda, and that science funding has no political strings attached.

I for one am not that convinced. I do not have faith in the science funding system to allow adequate funding of all sides of the subject once the prevailing winds were changed by the exceedingly prestigious CNN science reporters. So far I am unimpressed.

I do think we should take every reasonable opportunity to reduce our impact on the planet. Americans could learn a thing or two about moderation. Some good will come of the AGW fear in that more people will seek ways to reduce emissions, like trading in the H2 for a hybrid. For those that can afford to be selective, fine, good. As for imposing energy facism for all, negative, not that religious in my AGW beliefs.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
28. hobbes9
2:27 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
We certainly didn't see any of that snow down here in Wash. DC! Wish we had...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
27. Caffinehog
2:14 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Yes, the dams lower sea level. Since most are at high latitudes, they also speed up the earth's rotation.


A day is actually 0.000008 seconds shorter than if we didn't have the dams!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
26. Patrap
9:25 AM CDT on March 14, 2008
Like I said..some cant swallow the news without grimacing and seeing Ghosts of their Political Childhood.

Plus we had thermometers in the 50's and 60's.
And Ship reports going back to the 14OO's.With Weather obs.
But shhhhh. We dont want the right to know.
Hell...the Planets only 5000 years old in some circles, LOL
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
25. MisterPerfect
2:21 PM GMT on March 14, 2008
Ah the good Dr. M....

Always a refreshing few days when he dedicates his blog to a dying fable of man's home-wrecking nature.

But its blogs on subjects such as these that beckon us to persue the facts...above and beyond data that began in the 1970's

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 74 - 24

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog 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