75 Million to Get Snowblasted

January 20th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The snowstorm expected to begin in earnest on Friday is still looking like one for the record books, especially in the DC area up through Philadelphia and New York City.

The heavily-populated I-95 corridor from the Mid-Atlantic to New England will see the heaviest snowfalls, starting Friday and spreading northeastward on Saturday.

By Sunday morning, nearly one-quarter of the U.S. population (about 75 million people) could get 6 inches or more of snow. Consistent with the weather model forecasts for the last several of days, the latest GFS model forecast continues to indicate the area around Washington D.C. would be hardest hit, with about 2 feet of snow expected (graphic courtesy of Weatherbell.com, click image for full-size):

Total forecast snowfall by midday Sunday, Jan. 24, 2016.

Total forecast snowfall by midday Sunday, Jan. 24, 2016.

New York City could see 16 to 20 inches, and nor’easter type conditions are expected for coastal areas from the Delmarva peninsula northward, with winds gusting over 50 mph.


112 Responses to “75 Million to Get Snowblasted”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Sean says:

    I live in the Baltimore Washington Corridor. The prediction has us getting 24+”. Should be an interesting weekend or one of the biggest busts ever. If we get the two feet predicted, any bets on when Federal Employees will be required to get back to work. I’ve seen as much as a 5 day closure of government offices for a 24″ snowstorm that hit on a Sunday.

    • JDAM says:

      The DMV received 0.7″ from a clipper last night and the beltway is gridlocked this morning. That clipper also bought in a shot of reinforcing cold air.

      • No. 6 says:

        The drivers in this region function behind the wheel like stoned idiots; and that’s under ideal weather conditions.

        Most of them will need a full 5 days off after the snow has cleared just to recover from the trauma of it all 😉

  2. mpainter says:

    “forecast continues to indicate the area around Washington D.C. would be hardest hit, with about 2 feet of snow expected ”
    ###

    Much to the consternation of certain high government officials in Congress and the WH.:-)

  3. 12Z GFS shows somewhat less accumulation for NYC now…less than a foot. More for DC, though…as much as 30 inches.

    • Sean says:

      Is someone on high trying to send a message to DC about climate change? There is a bulls eye for peak snow on DC. How will it be interpreted considering the hyperventilating press releases about the warmest year on record this morning? Nor’easters are common in the Mid-Atlantic during El Nino years often alternating between heavy snow and heavy rain (except in 2010 when it was all snow).

      • TedM says:

        It will be interpreted as an extreme weather event caused by global warming. Isn’t everything?

      • JDAM says:

        DC’s Top Snowfalls Within 3-Day Period 1884-2015
        1) 28.0 Jan 27-29, 1922
        2) 20.0 Feb 12-14, 1899
        3) 18.7 Feb 18-19, 1979
        4) 17.8 Jan 7-9, 1996
        5) 17.3 Feb 10-11, 1983
        6) 16.6 Dec 18-19, 2009
        8) 16.4 Feb 16-18, 2003
        9) 14.4 Feb 15-16, 1958
        10) 14.4 Feb 7, 1936
        NWS

        • JDAM says:

          I’m little south of DC, Pax River NAS. I was expecting 65 wind gust by now, but so far nothing more than a few inches of snow, so far.

  4. boris says:

    I know that folks like to compare the current weather with the past and calling this storm potentially “historic” sort of exaggerates its significance as a “winter weather” event for lack of a better expression. As winters go, it seems to me, this one is pretty ordinary compared even to ones in memory when drought has loosened its grip on California. One big difference is today all the national broadcast news has featured the “alarming dangerous weather” as a major item in the program everyday with lots of video feed of flooding, floundering snow removal, high winds taken by cell phone video.

  5. ossqss says:

    Burrrrrr!

    Courtesy of R.P. Sr.

    Interesting read on similar weather from 1966.

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.480.604&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    • CoRev says:

      Remember 1966 well. Back to back weekend blizzards totalling 30+ inches of blowing snow. Met my wife right after the 2nd.

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      I was in Cincinnati.
      I think there was 8 -10 inches near the University, a bit higher than downtown Cincy. People abandoned cars in the streets. Too poor to own a car, I was walking.

      Thanks for that link. I’ve looked for something such as this a couple of times but just flat out missed it.

      Stay safe, those of you back there (now from WA State).

  6. JDAM says:

    Why does NOAA use the 20th century average on their monthly SOT while UAH uses the 30 year normal?

    Why do both reports omit the actual baseline?

    • The baseline doesn’t matter for ranking the years within a dataset. The satellite record is short, so can only use data since 1979, thus the 30-year baseline. The long-term record extending back to 1900 (or so) can use a longer-term baseline. Only if you want to directly compare the same year’s anomaly values between the 2 datasets would you need to use the same baseline…but that would just be a single number you can add to make them comparable.

      • JDAM says:

        The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommends using the 30 normal (currently 1981 to 2010) as the baseline period for day-to-day weather and climate comparisons. The NCDC SOT report is not following the WMOs guidelines.

      • DougCotton says:

        Roy

        You need to use 60-year moving averages to get the true picture, because of the superimposed 60 year cycle. When you do this, the warming rate has been calculated as 0.06C/decade a hundred years ago and it now less at just under 0.05C/decade.

        The “coincidences” issue proves beyond reasonably doubt that greenhouse concepts are false. See this comment.

        • RichardLH says:

          That message hasn’t changed in about 1000 repetitions. Do you think hammering away will make a difference?

      • DougCotton says:

        So Roy, how about you do the best graph you can based on whatever data you think reliable in the last 150 years or so, and plot the 60-year moving average. This shows about 1 degree in about 200 years.

        • RichardLH says:

          When you can do physics right then the graph might mean something. Just because you can draw something, does not mean what you show is ‘right’.

      • RichardLH says:

        The interesting thing to my mind is how different the figures would look if a different base period was chosen instead of the current one.

        Just after the end of the reference period chosen, there is a big step change in the data. I realise that this was not part of the consideration for the choice. However if fate had caused the satellites to be 3-4 years later, then the base period would be very different and the figures likewise.

        • JDAM says:

          It seems to me that NOAA’s NCDC is using the 20th century average instead of the 30 normal is because the 20th average makes the warming appear more extreme.

          • RichardLH says:

            How does that make sense?

            The various reference periods in all the series are all fairly close together and quite recent because that is the way the data, timings and methodology stacks up.

            Not some great, fast , conspiracy theory.

  7. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Off topic question.

    I wanted to check the air temperature tonight and was measuring the temperature of the fence opposite with my IR thermometer to see if it was below zero.

    Normally the air doesn’t radiate so you can approximately measure the air temperature using a fence.

    I was measuring through the exhaust gasses which were coming from my oil fired boiler and I found I was measuring the temperature of the boiler exhaust gasses.

    What is it in the transparent exhaust gasses that I am measuring the temperature of? Water vapour? Carbon?

    • JDAM says:

      Did you open the window?
      Glass isnt IR transparent.

    • RichardS says:

      I’d vote for water vapour.
      (if you’re getting enough carbon soot in your exhaust to trigger the thermometer, you need to get your furnace tuned. It’s wasting fuel)

      Put your hand in the exhaust and it’ll get wet.

      IR thermometers are filtered to look only in the “atmospheric window” region of the spectrum.

      Go out some nights and point it straight up.

      On clear cool nights (here in Seattle) i’ll get -55F
      On cloudy nights it’ll be much warmer, and the temperature will be based upon the ground-based air temperature and the height of the clouds (being affected by the -6C lapse rate with altitude).

      Your furnace’s water vapor (and clouds) are physical “black body” radiators, so the IR thermometer sees them.

      • JDAM says:

        I’m curious as to how your able to take that measurement without standing on your roof. It would be incredibly dangerous for an oil fired boiler exhaust to be located below the roofline.

      • Most IR thermometers tend to “see” mostly 8-14 um, which includes absorption (and accordingly thermal emission) wavelengths of H2O and CO2. However, with the concentration of these gases usually present in air, IR thermometers can usually “see” through some reasonable distance of air (at least a few meters) and read fairly accurately. But furnace exhaust has a lot more water vapor and especially CO2 than usual atmospheric air has.

        Also, I think your furnace exhaust plume is partially transparent at the wavelengths “seen” by your IR thermometer, which means the center of your exhaust plume is almost certainly much hotter than your IR thermometer reads.

        • JDAM says:

          815 m is commonly referred to as LWIR (Long Wave IR). FLIR cameras used by the military and police operate in that part of the spectrum and they can see for 1000s of yards. They do so for a good reason the atmospheric window is fairly clear down to about 14 m. CO2 and water vapor absorb poorly in that region with one exception condensed water aka clouds and ice crystals. Another reason is that objects at room temperature emit strongly in the LIRW spectrum.
          Atmospheric transmittance plots are all over the internet, CO2 closes the window around 14 m.

      • DougCotton says:

        They’re not true blackbodies at all – nothing like it.

        Climatologists are brain-washed into thinking that radiation determines a planet’s surface temperature, and they think the surface is also a black or grey body. Pathetic physics, really.

        The truth is here.

      • Kelvin Vaughan says:

        The boiler has just been serviced. There is a wall opposite which gets sooty if it’s out of tune.

        • JDAM says:

          I checked out the picture I havent seen oil fired boiler vented out the side of a house in a long time.
          What I do remember was the side of that house was stained with soot deposits. Hope you own a good CO detector.

    • ossqss says:

      “What is it in the transparent exhaust gasses that I am measuring the temperature of? Water vapour? Carbon?”

      Heat

      You just can’t see it, but it can 😉

  8. Norman says:

    Any type of extreme weather is wonderful for all dedicated disciples of CAGW and they will use this (listen to NPR the next few days) heavy snowfall as proof of “weather weirding” and imminent doom if we do not stop all carbon emissions. It does not matter if it is snow, rain, drought, cold or heat as long as it is extreme it will work for the agenda!

    • RAH says:

      Even though the IPCC 3rd Assessment said that “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”? And the US has been getting slammed with heavy snowstorms in various places for the last couple of winters.

      Today there is snow on the ground in at least 49 states. Just tiny bits in W FL and NE Texas according to NOAA. Not sure about Hawaii. And with this going on we have the Team of Romm, Mann, and Trenberth out there making sure they assure everyone that big snow storms don’t disprove AGW. There anything that could happen that would falsify the AGW/man cause climate change hypothesis for those people and their disciples?

  9. Joel Shore says:

    If this 2 feet of snow for D.C. & Baltimore pans out, they will be ahead of Rochester and Binghamton for total snowfall this winter…and about tied with Buffalo. Of the major Western and Central NY cities, only Syracuse has had enough snow that D.C. won’t have a good chance of surpassing it.

  10. Villabolo says:

    What is the relevance of how many people are going to get snow? What’s relevant is what percentage of the world is warmer or colder than average. About 97-99% of the Earth’s surface is as warm, warmer or much hotter than average. Only a small geographical area is currently cold.

    • Ross says:

      Quite Correct. SO WHAT! Yes it’s called a storm – a snow storm. THIS IS not Global Warming or Climate Change no happening – Climate Change is a global change in the global climate regime that from NH to SH.

      These are a handful of red necked American climate deniers banging their gums and wringing their hands over a bit of snow and using it as a support for climate denial confirmation bias.

      I have just read a revealing paper on Christy’s & Spencer’s UAH product – a CLIMATE MODEL in itself with many flaws and defective conclusions about the REAL state of global warming. Aka Titley’s testimony in Senate hearing. Should I say? “How to NOT get elected for President” It went over like a lead balloon.

      Please Read and re-read the following science paper:

      http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/docs/MSU-Troposphere-Review01.pdf

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Ross…all you need to know about the document is that it was written in part by 3 uber alarmists: Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt (a mathematician who programs models), and William Connolley (a computer programmer who programs climate models).

        Not one has expertise in MSU or AMSU telemetry and this paper is a snow job on sat data.

        The paper is dated 2009, the year the Climategate email scandal was revealed. In the emails, Trenberth laments that the warming has stopped and that it’s a travesty that no one knows why. He went on to formulate a theory that the missing heat is being stored in the oceans.

        Schmidt, with Climategater Michael (Hockey Stick) Mann, run the uber alarmist site realclimate. Connolley’s claim to fame was riding shotgun on global warming skeptics as an editor on Wikipedia, until her went too far and they got rid of him for a while.

        The paper claims unprecedented warming in 2009 even though in secret Trenberth admitted it had stopped. In the 2012 review, the IPCC confirmed that no warming trend has been detected since 1998. Therefore, as they wrote the paper, they had to know they were not reporting the facts.

        Trenberth has been a coordinating lead author at IPCC reviews and he has considerable clout. In the emails, Phil Jones of Hadcrut, Trenberth’s partner at the reviews, bragged that he and Kevin would see to it that certain skeptical papers would not make through the IPCC review process.

        Apparently one of the papers they tried to block was one by John Christy of UAH.

        You can regard the paper by Trenberth et al as the piece of garbage it is.

        • Ross says:

          Hi Robert, In fairness what do really think Christy’s & Spencer’s UAH data is then. It is a model also. Snow job. I’m afraid I cannot accept that at all. Multiple lines of evidence do support that the earth is moderately heating up. We cannot draw global warmings conclusions at all from just one mathematical equation aka Christy & Spencer.

          • mpainter says:

            Ross,

            The surface datasets are corrupted and therefor unreliable, having uncertainties on the order of half a degree. The “keepers” of the surface datasets ignore the siteing problems and the spurious warming trends that are thus introduced into the record. Plus, the SST is the most uncertain of all, with changes from buckets to intakes, lack of control.

            UAH temperature datasets avoid such problems and therefore is mortem reliable. The two satellite datasets, RSS and UAH, agree very closely, thus confirming each other.

          • TedM says:

            Ross you obviously must believe that the radiosondes are flawed as they track extremely well with UAH and RSS, and far from well with the much adjusted surface temperature record.

            Tell me how do GISS and HACRUT compare with the USNCR network.

        • Ross says:

          Hi Robert, In fairness what do really think Christy’s & Spencer’s UAH data is then. It is a model also. Snow job. I’m afraid I cannot accept that at all. Multiple lines of evidence do support that the earth is moderately heating up. We cannot draw global warmings conclusions at all from just one mathematical equation aka Christy & Spencer.

          • RichardLH says:

            All instrumentation is a model. Period.

            The satellites model down. The thermometers model up. The GCMs do their own thing.

            Digital (in fact any digitalisation) works like that.

        • geran says:

          Good review, Robert.

          • Mack says:

            I think his name is Gordon Robertson. Yes, good summary Gordon.

          • geran says:

            Yes indeed, GORDON!

            Thanks for the correction Mack.

            (I was still on my first cup of coffee–dangerous period…)

          • Ross says:

            Sorry I just do not get how all can say they are all corrupted alternative measurements. Even Roy Spencer would not agree with this. Yet Roy sits on the side lines and allows these comments to stand. How can you call this objective science? This is plain Dunning Kruger rhetoric from many bloggers here.

            I have read the majority of science papers and disagree very strongly with Christy’s and Spencer’s numeric results. You cannot just use one line of evidence that flies in the face of so many other observations and measurements. Their algorithms are NOT in sync with the current evidence and trends. And those are NOT models. The global warming that is weakly implied is from a questionable set of calculations and algorithms. Derived from COMPUTERISED coding by Christy & Spencer. They ARE NOT DIRECT satellite measurements or numerics but pass through many formulas resulting a given output.

            As Titley clearly stated to the Senate committee (Dec 2015) – it is NOT rocket science – it’s MORE then rocket science. A complicated metholodolgy that could well be proven over time to give (via the UAH data sets) a false of sense of security to policy makers in Washington that there is nothing to worry about.

            Anyone who is a Systems Analyst in software engineering can clearly punch through the rhetoric of Christy and see that the UAH data maybe not be correct in its weaker warming results. Alternative lines of OBJECTIVE measurements contradict their assertion that their climate modelling can never be questioned.

            They both know this. They also well know that corrected revisionism of their code increases the warming TRENDS in their own data!

            And I’ll make this bold prediction as consequence of reading the papers challenging the UAH data sets. The UAH data sets will crumble within two years as the earth dramatically goes through yet another warming surge.

            Sorry but Climate denials like this just will not cut it into the future.

            And so it begins – the devolution of the Republican and Democrat debate reforms itself into unity of purpose. May that day come sooner then later.

            Sorry America – the world is watching you for leadership on this issue.

            Sorry I meant Gordon not Robert earlier.

          • geran says:

            Gosh Ross, that little snow storm really has you upset, huh?

          • mpainter says:

            Ross, you apparently don’t understand the difference between science and bald assertions as your comment is none of the former all the latter. You seem to have no familiarity with the issues of science. Sorry to have to point this out to you.

          • Norman says:

            Ross

            mpainter makes very good sense with his comment. Once a person joins the cult of CAGW they become biased and the “dark side” of emotion clouds their logical circuits.

            A lot of people in the CAGW movement are on a mission to save the Earth from disaster and this deep emotional content of being Earth’s saviors taints all the science (proposing a hypothesis, gathering data to support or reject the hypothesis and if the evidence supports it then it becomes a theory).

            Roy has posted how the vast majority of CAGW climate models have no predictability (which is what the fear is based upon). Outside hypothetical forcings, that do not seem to have any validity in the real world climate, the actual increase in temperature from Carbon Dioxide emissions is not much to worry about.

            The climate issue is now a political one not a scientific one that will be weighed by actual evidence. Two sides to the issue Conservative vs Liberal view and both sides will select and present only data that supports their viewpoint and consider the opposing view anti-science.

            Since it is a political issue I like to read both this blog and Skeptical Science to achieve a balance to the force of political agendas.

          • tonyM says:

            Ross,

            Given that you use the comprehensive “all” you no doubt consider that you are uniquely objective and don’t suffer cognitive bias or illusory superiority ideas. Perhaps you can then enlighten us on a question put to David Appell and I copy that comment for you.

            “If you mean that after Karlizing, krigging, infilling, homogenizing, pasteurizing and baptizing that NOAA/GISS T changes are somehow a better guide then it is a risible proposition.

            Almost a year ago I asked you for your comments on two very very different Ts of two stations within 8km of each other in Perth (West Australia). I show you a similar divergence for yesterday, Jan 7th, 2016.

            Swanbourne (a suburb of Perth within 8km of the CBD, 16m height difference): (NB I have removed the site data referral as it would only give the last three days data).

            Perth was 37.5C at 11.30am, peaked at 2pm showing 41.2C. By 11pm it showed 31.3C

            Swanbourne peaked at 11.30am recording 39.2C, was down by 2pm to 29.5C . By 11 pm it was 25.7C.

            So it diverged by more than 11C and maintained a high difference throughout the day. So what was Perths avg T for the day? What does it say about the credibility that GISS projections of T within 1200km is appropriate?

            Gavin Schmidts suggestion that GISS is accurate to 0.01C is equally laughable when he posited that 2014 was the highest T evahhhh! Between Hansen and Gavin it seems that the T data has been massaged up by about 0.3C increase compared to previous published data. It seems they could make pigs fly, if they tried.”

            At least UAH correlates well when compared to RSS, radiosondes and the US pristine database.
            What does GISS correlate with? Pigs about to fly, perhaps?

            Given that Hansens predictions failed and hence his hypothesis is falsified why do you think your “bold predictions” will be any better. Seems to me you are in no position to talk about “denials.”

    • RichardLH says:

      It’s called winter normally

  11. Lewis says:

    Villabolo,

    In case you hadn’t noticed, AGW and CAGW are not about climate or the earth but about political control. If you would do a little research in the climate history, the current uproar over 30 to 100 years of records and record heat would be put in proper perspective. It is not simply because doing so would ruin the propaganda program.

    Beyond that!

    If DC would get about 6 feet, that would help us all out
    here in the hinterlands.

    Stop the trucks from delivering groceries to the warehouses and let them eat cake.

  12. Bil Danielson says:

    More irrefutable proof of the calamities and consequences of anthropogenic catastrophic climate manipulation. #facitious

  13. Norman says:

    Because it is almost certain (but not 100%) that the huge snowstorm will be used as proof of climate change and weather weirding by the faithful in the cult of CAGW, I post this link to nip it in the bud before it has a chance to blossom into full fledge lunacy!

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/forensic-meteorology-solves-mystery-record-snows

    David Appell if you are around please read the link. Thanks.

    • jerry l krause says:

      Norman, you have to be careful by referring to a mystery on this site. For mpainter may inform you that science has no mysteries as he faulted me for quoting Sir Arthur Conan Dolye, a mystery author, on a science blog. Have a good day, Jerry

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Norman,

      Thank you for the link. Assuming negative NOA and El Nino conspire to create massive storms in the continental US the CAGW crowd can always fall back on well the “warm” high pressure zones have more energy because of CAGW and the most recent storm will little doubt prove more massive than any before it even if we lack comprehensive information to prove it. Still the link provided an interesting analysis.

      Have a great day!

    • RichardLH says:

      “If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century.”

      from the ref.

  14. Joel says:

    Roy, I’m curious your take on the following article and its attempt to justify NOAA data manipulation. I’m not astute enough poke holes in its attempted logic…..http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/?comments=1

    • RichardLH says:

      “Speaking of data, the latest datasets are in and 2015 is (as expected) officially the hottest year on record. It’s the first year to hit 1C above levels of the late 1800s. And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (*spoiler alert*), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s.”

      from the ref.

    • Jim Dean says:

      Hi Joel,

      I ride a motorcycle year round. It isn’t unusual to see temperatures 1-15 degrees difference within a 50 mile radius. I live in the Pee Dee area of South Carolina. The temperature difference is not because of elevation changes I assure you. If the data is manipulated to remove the temperature difference, THAT is spurious manipulation. Weather happens, the data should be accepted as is. If you aren’t in the area when the WEATHER happens, how can you change it to suite what you think it should have been?

  15. JohnKl aka James Bond says:

    Hi Jerry L Krause,

    Science consists of the facts and laws of nature. To complain that science has no mysteries seems strange since obviously the facts and laws of nature will only seem strange to those ignorant of them. Moreover, there remains many unexplained phenomenon in nature so to shut ones eyes to them seems absurd. For example, how does a butterfly obtain a completely different DNA pattern during metamorphosis than the caterpillar that preceded it? Many attempt to explain the ubiquitous mysteries around us by curt bromides or appeals to some theory ultimately fail to clarify. I agree with you many mysteries remain. Such as why Conan Doyle believed in wee little Fairy folk? Why did Thomas Aquinas supposedly believe in the philosopher’s stone (it would be funny if it ever turned up somewhere)? Why Aristotle believed women had either fewer or more teeth (I forget)? Or why David Appell and others appear to believe that a .2 w/m^2 per decade increase in CO2 emissions poses a dire threat to planetary survival?

    Btw, I appreciate Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as you seem to and his literary attempts to bring deductive reasoning to forensics and resolving mysteries. It should be remembered that if one digs deep enough everyone likely carries some ill-thought out concept in their mind that helps them perhaps only psychologically in some way face the challenges of existence but ultimately may itself bear little relation to reality. It need not take away from their accomplishments, which in Conan Doyle’s case and others stood the test of time. His books are still read!

    Have a great day!

    • JohnKl aka James Bond says:

      Correction, my statement should read:

      It should be remembered that if one digs deep enough most everyone likely carries some ill-thought out concept in their mind that helps them perhaps only psychologically in some way face the challenges of existence but ultimately may itself bear little relation to reality.

      • DEC says:

        Hi Curly,
        I agree.

        The reality is that the globe is warming.
        2015 was the warmest year on record.
        There is no pause.
        Sea levels are rising.
        The oceans are becoming more acidic.
        Glaciers are melting.
        Heat extremes are increasing.

        You can deny the above, and that is your right if it helps you “face the challenges of existence” in a psychological sense. I understand this. We all understand this. And we don’t blame you and your fellow travellers (Moe and Larry).

        • mpainter says:

          DEC, you have a bad case of the alarmist knee jerk. I advise you to see a doctor and get some help, lest some day your lower leg pops off at the knee and flies out the window.

          • RichardLH says:

            Is this a medical forum?

          • Lewis says:

            Richard,

            The answer is yes; on occasion. Many who attend here have psychological imparities and some others, kindly souls, try to help them overcome their addictions and visions using various tactics from rational thinking to the more mundane verbal abuse.

            In all it seems a waste of effort, although the intent of the do gooders is well meant. It is just that as Lew Powell of the Charlotte Observer told me years ago, ‘it is difficult to change the minds of those who have to their opinions emotionally, by using rational thought’ (or some such)

            Well, off to ride around in the snow storm.

            Good day.

          • RichardLH says:

            And a Good day to you sir.

          • DEC says:

            Lewis,
            I agree with you wholeheartedly. Could not have said it better.

          • RichardLH says:

            “Many who attend here have psychological imparities and some others, kindly souls, try to help them overcome their addictions and visions using various tactics from rational thinking to the more mundane verbal abuse.”

            In a public place utterances that suggest an identifiable person is mentally defective or suffering from another mental condition could be considered actionable.

            Not by me. I know it doesn’t apply to me. I can get a doctors note to prove it if you like (and pay for it).

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi DEC,

          Thank you for yet another amazing post, that clarifies exactly how your mind operaties. For example in a previous thread when confronted with the frozen ice-entombed remains of Mammoths, Mastadons, Dyre Wolves, etc. you boldly asserted your theory:

          “Hi Curly,
          The mammoths etc. are thought to have become extinct due to rapid climate warming.”

          Your brilliance simply leaves us agape. You have so much to teach us and our limited minds can barely comprehend. Like many others on this blog we hobble along, our minds limited by logic and the Law of Identity. Perhaps we cannot see as clearly the amazing world you claim exists. Please allow me as one of the weaker vessels to take a stab at comprehending your thought shattering claims:

          “The reality is that the globe is warming.”
          Wow! Again I say wow! I’m so gland to hear this, we’re still in an ICE AGE and it’s getting chilly! How did you arrive at this conclusion? Many lesser mortals would have missed it. Yes, what data exists does indicate some apparent warming. Did I claim otherwise? You go on:

          “2015 was the warmest year on record.”
          Forgive me. Which record? The UAH and RSS satellite data indicate 1998 as the warmest year on record. Roy inidicated radiosondes and other data agree with satellites:

          “But since the satellites generally agree with (1) radiosondes and (2) most global reanalysis datasets (which use all observations radiosondes, surface temperatures, commercial aircraft, satellites, etc. everything except the kitchen sink), I think the fact that NOAA-NASA essentially ignores it reveals an institutional bias that the public who pays the bills is becoming increasingly aware of.”

          So as Roy indicates, you probably refer to the NOAA-NASA (and likely JAMA, using the same source) data sets! Isn’t or wasn’t Congress investigating NOAA-NASA for data manipulation? You continue:

          “There is no pause.”
          Great! I was hoping this ICE AGE wouldn’t last forever! You further illuminate:

          “Sea levels are rising.”
          Oh, my! IF I remember correctly, models from the University of Santa Barbara place the rise at between 10-13 inches per century over many centuries. Do you think we have time to find higher ground? It’s always good to remember the University of Colorado adjusts their sea level data higher based on the unproven ASSUMPTION that the Earth’s ocean basins are increasing in size, just in case another data set comes along that dares to suggest the sea rise isn’t much. The Maldives are only ~1-2(highest point) meters above sea level and despite continuing claims they’ll soon disappear remain as they were. You continue:

          “The oceans are becoming more acidic.”
          Thank God for salt, which after deposition into the oceans from land helps to keep it alkali. Not to be outdone with bold pronouncements, however obvious, you state:

          “Glaciers are melting.”
          When haven’t they? Don’t glaciers always melt at some point during the year. Should the Arctic ice sheat dwindle some nice oil and gas deposits become economically feasible. You should head to the Antarctic it may last a little longer but who knows when it will disappear.

          “Heat extremes are increasing.”
          Have you seen a Doctor about that. Hot flashes shouldn’t be ignored! You may be pregnant. As to Earth temperatures, the hottest temperature recorded occurred if I remember correctly at Death Valley in 1913, over a century ago. We must be over due! When do you think it will happen? Summer is coming maybe the old record will be shattered. It’s about time. You close in part:

          “You can deny the above, and that is your right if it helps you “face the challenges of existence” in a psychological sense.”
          What exactly did I deny? I don’t recall. You finally close:

          “I understand this. We all understand this. And we don’t blame you and your fellow travellers (Moe and Larry).”
          What exactly do you all understand? Oh! You must mean your theory than animal life en-tombed in ice likely died of a heat-stroke! Good to see your on top of things! Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

          Have a great day!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          @DEC…”There is no pause”.

          So the IPCC is wrong, is that your inference?

          See page 6 in link below:

          “Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade)…”

          http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf

          What is it about warming hiatus you don’t understand, Moe?

    • RichardLH says:

      “Science consists of the facts and laws of nature.”

      Everything else is Politics.

  16. HenryA says:

    To the wonderful DEC, David and Ross what a fine trio of brainwashed warmers you are. You show up, attack our host and proceed to put all of us “deniers” in our place.
    Of course you extol us with the teachings of your high priest the “Gore” and his apostles ‘Hansen’ and ‘Schmidt’ and tell us how we must repent from our evil ways; the burning of all things fossil. We have heard that this produces the devil incarnate, the sinister and oppressive CO2 molecule. And yes we know and have heard the prophecies of your computerized soothsayers the “95 models” and the dire portents that they reveal. Drought, famine, flood, sea level rise(oh, no wait those already happen) and extreme heat and if we don’t act right now it will be too late( of course you have been saying the same thing for 20 yrs now). And of course you remind us how we shouldn’t think only of ourselves but of future generations. 100 yrs from now when the catastrophe will begin in earnest(of course none of their predictions have come true so far, and I wonder if the men flying bi-planes over the Western Front in 1916 could have imagined jet airliners) if we don’t all switch to renewable energy.(of course it’s unreliable and even google couldn’t figure out how to make it work competitively.)
    Yes I know i’m just and old curmudgeon, set in my ways. I was fooled in the days of my youth by “Global Cooling”, the Population bomb,”Peak Oil”, Acid Rain and of course “Ozone Depletion”. But the world got warmer, we didn’t all starve, there’s still lots of oil the frogs are still living and the ozone hole wasn’t caused at all.
    If none of these things predicted by “scientists” came true in the past, why on earth should I believe three pinheads like you now? I was in eastern Washington driving south, the morning Mt St Helens blew. The ash cloud was pretty frickin’ awesome. After seeing that I’m not the least bit concerned by the amount of CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere. So don’t go away mad, just go away.

  17. Norman says:

    Observer

    I believe I lost some posts on another thread at around that time but they were not significant.

  18. RichardLH says:

    Roy:

    A couple of questions that have been puzzling me.

    1. Snow, ice, etc. Where does the latent heat (as opposed to sensible heat) for the water/ice/vapour interfaces show up in the Air temperature figures? Thermometer as well as Satellite.
    There is a large amount of energy there with no temperature change required. How is it accounted for if we are trying to do power/energy calculations on the GAT figures?

    2. The Boundary Layer problem. It is well known that a surface boundary layer exists within which the thermometers lie. It is my assertion that they better sample that sub-slice of the atmosphere with the Satellite seeing 3000+ meters better. Thoughts?

  19. Hello there! This is kind of off topic but I need some advice from an established blog. Is it very hard to set up your own blog? I’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I’m thinking about making my own but I’m not sure where to begin. Do you have any ideas or suggestions? Appreciate it

  20. Anonymous says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  21. ؽ鿲 says:

    ׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510

  22. Perhaps, Lauren knew this before she begun and stands as a possible inspiration for other entrepreneurs ‘ both along with
    men. Before applying the makeup you hope would
    make a magical aura who are around you, to understand following strategies for beautiful makeup:
    . Beauty tips dark circles under eyes This will need less than 15 seconds and also you will feel much better.

    One should do a little research and judge an ad company which offers both reasonable prices as well as a good return on investment.
    Gone include the days when pregnancy was viewed
    because worst time to please take a picture of any woman.

    In the long run, India will make notable contributions to your global economy improvement.
    inner – raisingchildren.net.au,
    beauty tips gujarati ma This might be due to your personality clash,
    religious or cultural belief or some other factors
    including a significant age gap.

  23. Anonymous says:

    ׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510

  24. Using your imagination and different light
    sources (flashlights, external flash units, you camera’s built-in flash, flood light, etc.
    They need this for product promotion strategy
    along with business awareness. beauty tips in urdu for hair tips jaipur
    These procedures have to become followed to be able to stall the aging process, and also to preserve a
    young look.

    Look for the peptide formula which halts trans-epidermal water loss generally known as TEWL.
    It can enable you to maintain an even more favorable body weight at the same time.

  25. ׳ says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  26. Pelvic floor exercises tone and increase circulation to the entire
    pelvic floor. The dosages of fructose required to produce negative effects are quite high.
    250 convert 150 grams to cups caster sugar in cups

  27. ú says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  28. Ľƽ̨ says:

    1ķӶô㣿
    źҪĹؼʻӣɽ롰ԱġѡӦĶڡҪ޸ġֱڱҳн°µҪзϵͳὫйʣֱתС
    2ٶӶſ֣
    ƽ̨ӶһԪ
    3ֺܵˣ
    ֺ24СʱὫӶֵ˺С
    4ַʽļ֣
    Ŀǰƽֻ̨֧֧Ƹͨ֡
    http://www.pugongcao.com/?t=1421

  29. Anonymous says:

    ͣйһҹˡ¼׿Խµ캢ӡDHCVANCLȹƷʵB2C̼ңṩݵڡûҵͼƷhttp://sounion.gouwuke.com/

  30. дŮ says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  31. Ҷּ says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  32. ڻ says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  33. ʹ says:

    ͣйһҹˡ¼׿Խµ캢ӡDHCVANCLȹƷʵB2C̼ңṩݵڡûҵͼƷhttp://sounion.gouwuke.com/

  34. Ч says:

    ͣйһҹˡ¼׿Խµ캢ӡDHCVANCLȹƷʵB2C̼ңṩݵڡûҵͼƷhttp://sounion.gouwuke.com/

  35. ¶Э says:

    ½(LU.com)-йƽųԱ,ֵһվʽͶƽ̨.ҵAAA,ȫͶ߻.ƲƷͶ:14ƣרƣ.ƽ,Ϣ.¿ͰԪ,ע! http://t.lu.com/r/qdqLO=J

  36. ʷ says:

    ͣйһҹˡ¼׿Խµ캢ӡDHCVANCLȹƷʵB2C̼ңṩݵڡûҵͼƷhttp://sounion.gouwuke.com/