It's cold.....brrrrrr

The country's landmass is now more than 50% snow/ice covered, with winter still more than a month away.
 
Matthew said:
Anybody in Buffalo?

http://www.newsday.com/news/region-...-slammed-with-nearly-3-feet-of-snow-1.9628631
Click to expand...

They got 3 feet. If we have a forecast of 3" here people start hoarding milk, bread and eggs, generators, snow shovels, filling their cars. I just make sure I have enough beer to last the 24 hours until it melts.

PS... My dad is into natural gas stocks and has a subscription to a weather forecasting service, one of the forecasters was talking about the possibility of a winter storm east of the Appalachians late next week
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
They got 3 feet. If we have a forecast of 3" here people start hoarding milk, bread and eggs, generators, snow shovels, filling their cars. I just make sure I have enough beer to last the 24 hours until it melts.
Click to expand...


I lived in Charlotte for six years, and some people think you're joking. I know you aren't. It's seriously sad; what's also sad is seeing how many grown adults don't mind allowing 3" of snow to keep them from going to work, economic output be damned. It's like they all revert back to grammar school.

What I don't understand was the weird pride people took about not having the snow equipment "y'all have up north." Seriously, it snows at least once per year, and we had at least a couple of ice storms per year. You don't need Vermont-level snow equipment, but you could put blades on the front of a fleet of garbage trucks and accomplish the same thing.

One last thing. Why did Charlotte ALWAYS wait until the snow/ice was done falling before doing anything on the roads, and then putting some "slag" mixture on the roads only AFTER people have been driving on it and creating compacted ice?

Snowy/icy roads in NASCAR country was a BAD combination. "If you ain't tradin' paint, you ain't racing" didn't just apply to the Charlotte Motor Speedway. It applied to every road in the region!
 
Saturday our forecast was for 3"-5", starting about sunrise and ending around sunset. By 11am the snow had started and the salt trucks were tearing through the neighborhoods dumping rock salt as quickly as they could. By 11:01am the snow had stopped.
 
N801BH said:
Funny..........

Not a peep out of Al Gore in months...:rolleyes:........:D
Click to expand...

Why would he peep? 2014 is going to be one of the hottest, if not THE hottest, years on record.

Just like last winter when the eastern US saw unseasonably cold weather, that's only a very small data point when you consider temperatures around the globe and in the oceans. So, saying the the US is colder than normal doesn't refute anything unless the rest of the earth follows suite.
 
But...but...the U.S. constitutes almost 1.5% of the planet and many of us

have-you-ever-wanted-to-be-the-center-of-attention-so-bad.jpg


i.e. don't confuse him with facts.
 
Matthew said:
Saturday our forecast was for 3"-5", starting about sunrise and ending around sunset. By 11am the snow had started and the salt trucks were tearing through the neighborhoods dumping rock salt as quickly as they could. By 11:01am the snow had stopped.
Click to expand...

I have a 20 year old chevy, always stored outside, 250,000 miles and no rust. Around here where it only snows a few times a year, I would much rather just wait a day for it to melt.
 
Tell me about it.. One week feels like spring the next is the middle of winter:lol:
 
write-stuff said:
Why would he peep? 2014 is going to be one of the hottest, if not THE hottest, years on record.

Just like last winter when the eastern US saw unseasonably cold weather, that's only a very small data point when you consider temperatures around the globe and in the oceans. So, saying the the US is colder than normal doesn't refute anything unless the rest of the earth follows suite.
Click to expand...

And that sir.... Is Al Gore's biggest problem....:yes:
 
dell30rb said:
I have a 20 year old chevy, always stored outside, 250,000 miles and no rust. Around here where it only snows a few times a year, I would much rather just wait a day for it to melt.
Click to expand...

We got 700" of snow 3 years ago yet our vehicles here don't rust. That's because they don't put salt on the roads.
 
Jay Honeck said:
The country's landmass is now more than 50% snow/ice covered, with winter still more than a month away.
Click to expand...

Climatological winter and calendar winter are two completely different things.

dell30rb said:
So far, we are at .1 C above the 30 year average in 2014. Some would call that normal.
Click to expand...

Thirty years is already after "the change" was well underway. Check out the 100 to 150 year averages and get back with us.
 
A brother and SiL live in Phoenix. She just emailed:

Sunday, a "weather" person was interviewing moms at a playground questioning how they had to dress their kids since it was only in the 60's and that they would probably close the parks if it got too much colder.
Click to expand...

I respond with:
And the winter I worked in Appleton, WI, the kids were walking over a mile to school in -20dF temps. No exaggeration at all. A lot tougher breed up there.

That's why the south lost the war! :)
Click to expand...
 
22 F here in mASSachusetts. I was cold last week, now I'm acclimated. Spring here yet?
 
N801BH said:
And that sir.... Is Al Gore's biggest problem....:yes:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what Gore has to do with this, but you seem to be refuting my statement that data from one small area does not define the worldwide reality?

So are you saying it does? No wonder you appear confused.
 
write-stuff said:
I'm not sure what Gore has to do with this, but you seem to be refuting my statement that data from one small area does not define the worldwide reality?

So are you saying it does? No wonder you appear confused.
Click to expand...

No confused at all sir......

But thanks for asking....:rolleyes2:
 
N801BH said:
No confused at all sir......

But thanks for asking....:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
put another way, the earth has always had warm and cool periods. Warm times have been good for mammals in general and humans in particular. It may be preposterous and arrogant to think that man could have a meaningful impact on these natural cycles, but if you stop and think about it having a slightly warmer earth could be a big benefit if there actually was some way to pull it off.
 
JHW said:
put another way, the earth has always had warm and cool periods. Warm times have been good for mammals in general and humans in particular. It may be preposterous and arrogant to think that man could have a meaningful impact on these natural cycles, but if you stop and think about it having a slightly warmer earth could be a big benefit if there actually was some way to pull it off.
Click to expand...


Agreed......

And this whole fight over Carbon Dioxide is bizarre..... Fact is trees and ALL vegetation needs CO2 to thrive.. The more trees the more Oxygen... What is not to like...:dunno::dunno:..

As for warming.... Just one huge NATURAL event, like a Kracatoa will spew way more gasses into the air then all of mankind created stuff combined... And no one is screaming to stop volcanic eruptions.. Not even Al Gore....:no:......:rolleyes:
 
N801BH said:
Agreed......

And this whole fight over Carbon Dioxide is bizarre..... Fact is trees and ALL vegetation needs CO2 to thrive.. The more trees the more Oxygen... What is not to like...:dunno::dunno:..

As for warming.... Just one huge NATURAL event, like a Kracatoa will spew way more gasses into the air then all of mankind created stuff combined... And no one is screaming to stop volcanic eruptions.. Not even Al Gore....:no:......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
put another way, iceland has a long long way to go in forming a plan to reduce their carbon footprint. They're a bigger emitter than china and india combined
 
JHW said:
put another way, iceland has a long long way to go in forming a plan to reduce their carbon footprint. They're a bigger emitter than china and india combined
Click to expand...

Yuppers....

Let's all get signs that say ( BAN ICELAND ) ... We can demonstrate in front of the White House....:goofy::goofy::goofy:
 
N801BH said:
Agreed......

And this whole fight over Carbon Dioxide is bizarre..... Fact is trees and ALL vegetation needs CO2 to thrive.. The more trees the more Oxygen... What is not to like...:dunno::dunno:..

As for warming.... Just one huge NATURAL event, like a Kracatoa will spew way more gasses into the air then all of mankind created stuff combined... And no one is screaming to stop volcanic eruptions.. Not even Al Gore....:no:......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Pretty hasty conclusion you have drawn. The fact that plants use CO2 in no way indicates that higher CO2 will have a positive affect on global plant life. It took the existing flora/fauna millions of years to evolve into species that were fine-tuned for this particular climate's chemistry. Slow changes are fine - plants and animals adapt. But fast changes outpace species' ability to evolve.

The oceans in particular absorb most of the CO2 that is created. We're now seeing a rapidly escalating curve in the amount of CO2 being absorbed. The result is lowering oceanic pH. If it continues, it will have a disastrous affect on ocean life, particularly shell fish. This is not speculation, it is documented fact.

Volcanoes. If the Yellowstone or other super-volcano erupts, every other environmental concern we currently have will go to the back of the line. But otherwise, it is a popular misconception that volcanoes produce more CO2 on an annual basis than human activity. They do not.
 
write-stuff said:
Pretty hasty conclusion you have drawn. The fact that plants use CO2 in no way indicates that higher CO2 will have a positive affect on global plant life. It took the existing flora/fauna millions of years to evolve into species that were fine-tuned for this particular climate's chemistry. Slow changes are fine - plants and animals adapt. But fast changes outpace species' ability to evolve.

The oceans in particular absorb most of the CO2 that is created. We're now seeing a rapidly escalating curve in the amount of CO2 being absorbed. The result is lowering oceanic pH. If it continues, it will have a disastrous affect on ocean life, particularly shell fish. This is not speculation, it is documented fact.

Volcanoes. If the Yellowstone or other super-volcano erupts, every other environmental concern we currently have will go to the back of the line. But otherwise, it is a popular misconception that volcanoes produce more CO2 on an annual basis than human activity. They do not.
Click to expand...

You might be right on Volcanoes but plants do not need to evolve to benifit from increased CO2
"It is well known that a CO2 level in the garden's air between 700 and 900 ppm improves crop development and yield. Most plants grown for their beautiful flowers or foliage optimally develop at about 800 ppm. Roses are distinctive as they require about 1200 ppm in carbon dioxide concentration for best results. For many fruits and vegetables, the ideal CO2 level in the garden should be at least between 1000 and 1200 ppm." http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm

And the Ocean's PH remains above 8.0.
 
Weather and climate are NOT THE SAME!

9fd62f74390c12c123a37ccfd47dcfd5.jpg


Can't believe in the face of good science there are still climate change deniers.

916530c901d75c6c2c7870b696cd8af7.jpg
 
It was 19F yesterday morning. Fun times standing on the ramp preheating the engine for 15 mins. Anything lower then about 30F at altitude a jacket is required to stay warm, especially in the backseat.
 
wrbix said:
Weather and climate are NOT THE SAME!

Can't believe in the face of good science there are still climate change deniers.
Click to expand...
The bolded words are your problem. Just because you get a grant doesn't mean the science is good. Lotsa of free money for science fiction with a certain ending.
 
write-stuff said:
Ok, let's go with the more easily quantifiable part of your statement.

What exactly are you implying with that sentence?
Click to expand...

I was replying to this: "If it continues, it will have a disastrous affect on ocean life, particularly shell fish. This is not speculation, it is documented fact."

See what you did there? If it continues ... it is documented fact. That's gibberish.

"The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
 
CharlieTango said:
I was replying to this: "If it continues, it will have a disastrous affect on ocean life, particularly shell fish. This is not speculation, it is documented fact."



See what you did there? If it continues ... it is documented fact. That's gibberish.



"The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
Click to expand...


The hockey still guy did a totally accurate model for replicating oceanic acidity. Duh.

DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sorry, Charlie, but you're wrong on both accounts.

Second one first. The pH scale is a spectrum. There is nothing magic about 7.0. Any decrease makes the water more acidic. This is basic high school chemistry. The pH scale is logarithmic so that a tiny movement increases or decreases acidity/alkalinity by a much more pronounced amount. Ocean life, particularly those known as "calcifiers", are severely impacted by a decrease in pH. It doesn't have to reach some magic threshold such as 7.0

wattsupwiththat is hardly what anyone would call a professional and unbiased site. It is some retired TV weatherman's hobby website where he rants on with obviously cherry picked data.

Next, you complained about my comment "If it continues ... it is documented fact." Explain how that is "gibberish". There have been countless studies around oceanic vents where biology is analysed based on the local water's pH. Carefully measured pH effects do play havoc with a variety of ocean organisms. I'll repeat what I said. This is not speculation, it is documented fact.
 
wrbix said:
Can't believe in the face of good science there are still climate change deniers.
Click to expand...


300 years ago there was a mini ice age. No one denies the climate changes.

NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming
Click to expand...
 
Come on down to Amelias Landing Hotel guys. We are almost back to flying in shorts and t-shirts:

214375679f1c5f734772e3ce2f9889bd.jpg


It was warmer today at 7500' than on the surface. That was one big bubble of cold air you guys shoved down here, and all of our nice warm air is overriding it!
 
wrbix said:
Can't believe in the face of good science there are still climate change deniers.
Click to expand...
With 3 engineering degrees I've had some limited exposure to the scientific method. When a person questions a hypothesis and proposes alternatives, that is the definition of "good science". OTOH when people who question a theory are stifled and labelled "deniers" that is the opposite of good science - it moves into the realm of politics, religion, etc. Ironically, in the current "climate" the methodology used by the Catholic church to canonize a saint does a better job of meeting the definition of "good science" than does the prevailing approach to carbon religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top