OT. Worst U.S. blizzards

Page 3 of 6  
wrote Re Re: OT. Worst U.S. blizzards:

Any weather condition is an expected symptom of G.W. That way they are always right. Just more junk science from the Carl Sagan crowd.
Actually, I don't doubt G.W. I just doubt that it is caused by and controllable by man. Given that there have been several cycles of warming/cooling in the past few million years, long before humans were on the planet, I think that's a reasonable conclusion. The last cycle of G.W. started 25k years ago and caused the demise of the last ice-age which has allowed mankind to move out of their caves.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course there is global warming, otherwise we would still be in the ice age. I happen to think that is good.
Bob-tx
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

Interestingly, that characteristic was developed only after the "extreme conditions" occurred.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

I stand corrected. The earliest reference I can find regarding "global warming" and "extreme weather" was 1976 in an article raising alarm over the impending ice age.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Hwang wrote:

Heh!
I'm sitting at my computer. There's rioting in Egypt.
Which of the two possibilities am I?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The warm weather puts more water in the atmosphere, which permits more snow.
It snows most often when it's not that cold, 28 to 38 degrees. So heavy snows don't mean it's colder out.
This one is sort of strange "5. "The Children's Blizzard" This blizzard occurred in 1888, causing 230 deaths. The blizzard was completely unexpected, and temperatures dropped from above zero to below 40 in the course of a day. Many people, mostly children who had left for school that morning, died of hypothermia."
It doesnt' say what city this was, and I don't think it will snow at 40 below, but it will at below 40, so it's pretty confused.
Also this one: "1. Blizzard of 1888 This storm occurred the same year as "The Children's Blizzard" and caused major damage to Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Due to the hazardous conditions, railroads were closed down, which prevented many people from having any form of transportation. Over 400 people died in the storm. Massive flooding and inextinguishable fires destroyed major cities"
There may have been major files in more than one city, but I don't know of any city destoryed by such a fire, where it snows, and the author says more than one.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

Perhaps if you learned the difference between weather and climate....
Global warming appears to be working very well. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/2010_hottest_climate_year_on_r.html 12/10/2010 - NASA says 2010 will be the global hottest year on record. The previous hottest year was 2005.
More extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right. When it's nice, it's weather. When you don't like it, it's Climate.

So is *everything* else. That's a nice way to have consistent "science".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I don't believe you are that dumb. (Those that are could use a dictionary.)

Totally ignores that 2010 will be the hottest year on record globally. Second hottest 2005. Pattern over years equals climate.
The consistent climate science is that the global temperature is going up. There is remarkable consensus by the vast majority of climate scientists looking at climate from multiple viewpoints. And remarkable consensus that the rise is the result of human activity.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<I snip to here>

2010 being warmest year on record and 2005 being 2nd place according to NASA means according to the GISS global temperature index. GISS is not the only global temperature index - there are 4 other major ones.
Besides, the GISS global temperature index has 2010 being a close second to 2005.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
There is also the NCDC one - in my experience, least-cited of all 5, due to similarity to GISS. That one also has 2010 being a close second place to 2005.
The HadCRUT3, UAH and RSS indexes have the hottest year being 1998, 2010 being in second place, and 3rd place is nearly a tie between 2005 and 2004.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:21:20 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

I think it was back in the late 60's or early 70's when I read an article in Pop Science or Pop Mechanics - or maybe Field and Stream or Argosy - about global temps. The fear then was global cooling, and another ice age. Anyway, the article writer wasn't too worried. Said all we had to do was air drop pulverized coal on the poles. Think he had worked out how many sorties the Air Force would have to fly to get the job done. That'll cause more sunlight to be absorbed and stop the ice age. Since the recent global warming buzz I got to thinking about that in reverse. Air drop reflective styrofoam beads in the oceans and where ever else it will do the job to reflect the sun's heat back up to the stars. No need to worry about any of this stuff. Might have to tweak it back and forth a few times to get it right.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Put down the Kool-Aid!

Only if it's warm. If it's cooler than last year it's weather.

There's that 'C' word, again. Science doesn't work by "consensus of the bought".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bud-- wrote:

"Science" does not depend on majority vote.
This does not mean the concept is not a valid way to govern one's life. Inasmuch as Global Warming is a faith-based religion - a cult, to be sure, but a religion nevertheless - those who believe in it must be accorded respect for their beliefs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Consensus is not majority vote.
Perhaps denialists could find out what consensus, climate and weather. mean.

Global warming, caused by CO2, produced by human activity, is widely accepted in the sciences.
Amongst those who back global warming: the vast majority (way over 90%) of climate scientists the US National Academy of Sciences the national science academies of all major countries of Europe and all major world industrialized nations. a large number of professional societies, just a few being American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society American Chemical Society World Meteorological Organization the well know scientist George Bush 2
Science has long since coalesced behind global warming.
Denialist arguments are boring - like talking to creationists. And for much the same reason.
--
bud--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bud-- wrote:

"Consensus" = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
So "Global Warming" cannot be a "consensus inasmuch as the group (of climate scientists), as a whole, do not subscribe to the notion.
"Weather" - change occurring during months that have an "R" in them. "Global Warming" - change occurring during the months without an "R".

Listening to a climate alarmist is like a Jew listening to a Jehovah's Witness door-knocker. And for much the same reasons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I could do my life over, I'd be a weatherman.
"Well, folks, it might rain tomorrow. Or not."
"Now, where's my check?"
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

Ever wonder how they come up with those predictions?
Easy, they get ten weathermen or staff in a room. "Okay, how many of you think it will rain tomorrow? One, two... seven. That's it? Okay then."
"Tomorrow expect a 70% chance of rain...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/31/2011 8:59 PM, HeyBub wrote:

I heard someone explain that the prediction meant there was a chance of rain over 70% of the area. Of course, I haven't researched it but perhaps someone posting here may know if that's correct.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Should I be correct in seeing this, I do congratulate my fellow daring dufas (or for that matter even a fellow engineer),
For getting away from Usenet-disfavored Top Posting...
In Usenet, posting "bottom" and "interleaved-in-response-to-short-points" is OK.
Best for now,
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@mi9sty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/31/2011 11:39 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:

Thanks I suppose..... but I've never top posted, except perhaps way back in the last century when I was a clueless newbie. :-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.