2 feet of Global Warming coming your way, east coast.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:lmao
-------------------------------------------------------------------



WASHINGTON, (KUNA): Snow storm New York & snow storm East Coast: Snowstorm to dump up to 2 feet of snow on US Eastcoast. The second major winter storm of the season was headed for the mid-Atlantic region on Friday with up to two feet of snow forecast in the U.S. capital, prompting federal employees to stay home in droves, and area schools to close for the day or let schoolchildren out a half-day early.
Airlines canceled flights in the region as the National Weather Service warned of snow accumulations of 16 inches to 24 inches from Baltimore to northern Virginia and parts of West Virginia. The snow was expected to fall from midday on Friday until Saturday evening.

Southwest Airlines canceled Friday afternoon flights at Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington airports, and Amtrak canceled most train service south from Washington.

A mid-December storm left some 20 inches of snow in the Washington area, and the latest storm surprised residents who seldom see even one snowstorm of these magnitudes.

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah, I'm surprised it snows anywhere in the world these days.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

mmm mmm mmm

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Ever heard of El Nino?

[Mark in Austin]

in related news, Tim Duncan set a career high in rebounds the other night, which proves he hasn't lost a step.

[Wild Cobra]

Ever heard of El Nino?
I didn't know El Nono could cause that...

All I can say is "Thank God for Global Warming, or it would really be bad!"

[sabar]

El nino actually warms and dries the eastern seaboard.

I don't mind some warming in winter, but I want nothing to do with a hot and dry summer again. Last year was ridiculous in south texas. I didnt see a raindrop for like 90 days in a row.

[florige]

El nino actually warms and dries the eastern seaboard.

I don't mind some warming in winter, but I want nothing to do with a hot and dry summer again. Last year was ridiculous in south texas. I didnt see a raindrop for like 90 days in a row.

Lol You guys suck! I am starting to REALLY hate snow.

[baseline bum]

And here's a few square miles of global warming

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/thisweek/2009/05/images/icemelt01.jpg

[mrsmaalox]

Behind The Weather: Strongest El Nino In A Decade
by Christopher Joyce

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123380157&sc=fb&cc=fp
February 4, 2010

Major snowstorms are set to bury the mid-Atlantic states this weekend after record snowfalls in December. Last month California was awash in rain. The Gulf states have seen heavy weather lately as well.

Turns out it's not just a run of bad luck. What's behind a lot of this winter's weather is El Nino, the tropical weather pattern that starts in the Pacific.

Scientists knew last summer that this was going to be an El Nino year. But it wasn't until the winter that its effects really hit the United States.

The strong El Nino and the subsequent precipitation are a result of something that started thousands of miles out in the Pacific Ocean.

"Ocean temperatures across the equatorial and tropical Pacific Ocean are somewhere upwards of two degrees above average," says Mike Halpert, deputy director of the Climate Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "So we have had what we would characterize as a strong El Nino."

How El Nino Impacts Weather


Scientists at the center say this is the strongest El Nino since the winter of 1997-98. What happens is that unusually warm sea surface temperatures in the western Pacific move east. That changes the heating pattern of the atmosphere, which in turn pulls the Pacific jet stream farther south. A jet stream is a fast and narrow current of air that travels high up in the atmosphere.

"And that jet stream is where we see a lot of storminess typically," says Halpert. "And we saw a very classical case of that, a superstrong jet extended all the way across the Pacific with storms impacting California one after the other."


A strong El Nino also alters another jet stream nearer to the equator that brings more storms to the Gulf area.

In fact, a strong El Nino plays havoc with weather from Indonesia to the Atlantic, but in different ways. Indonesia gets unusually dry weather, and in fact fires in parts of Indonesia have been frequent recently. Peru, on the west coast of South America, tends to get what California gets — flooding rains.

Halpert says storms are local events and no single storm can be attributed directly to the phenomenon. "One way to think of it is that El Nino conditions the atmosphere for these types of storms," he says.

Weather Changes

Halpert also points out that scientists don't know yet whether climate change is influencing the frequency or strength of El Ninos.


Scientists say El Nino will very likely persist another month or two. That usually means drier than usual weather in the Pacific Northwest and Ohio Valley, wetter in the West and Southwest, and colder in the Southeast.

El Nino has done some good, though, in the Southwestern United States.

"Nobody can remember seeing such a small amount of drought on the map," he says, "So this El Nino has taken a pretty big bite out of some pretty severe drought conditions that had developed last summer."

And by altering jet streams, El Nino also helped moderate last year's hurricane season in the Atlantic.

[CubanMustGo]

Thinking one localized, isolated climatic episode outweighs decades of observed warming worldwide

:lmao :rollin

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Especially after global cooling in the 70s :tu

[baseline bum]

Especially after global cooling in the 70s :tu

huh?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Grinnell_Glacier2.jpg

[EricB]

:lol @ global Warming still having any credit at all

[Bukefal]

Im very sceptical with this so called dangerous treat of global warming. Of course there is changes in climate, but these changes are natural, these have always been on earth. It's not something new, it's not something we have a big portion in causing this, it's a natural phenomena.

The other thing is, they also want to make the people a bit scared. If people are scared, you can do anything with them and people will spend. This global warming fear and hype is very good for economics----> certain peoples pockets and power

[JMarkJohns]

Whiny little east coast bitches! Two weeks ago almost six feet of snow dumped on Flagstaff, Az. in a 4-day stretch. We had almost 30 inches over a 24-hour period. The city was on complete lockdown and the National Guard was called in to help.

Two feet? OHHHH NOOOO!!!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

As Marini's article explained, El Nino alters the jet stream which means different weather across the entire North American continent, and all the way across the Pacific in SE Asia and Australia.

Or you could pretend that somehow a snow storm obviates numerous streams of scientific evidence for EGW and bury your head in the sand as per usual. Well done to the ignoramouses. :rolleyes

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Im very sceptical with this so called dangerous treat of global warming. Of course there is changes in climate, but these changes are natural, these have always been on earth. It's not something new, it's not something we have a big portion in causing this, it's a natural phenomena.

The other thing is, they also want to make the people a bit scared. If people are scared, you can do anything with them and people will spend. This global warming fear and hype is very good for economics----> certain peoples pockets and power

Dude, the changes we are seeing right now are far greater and faster than the background natural rate of change. Try going to your local university and talking to some climatologists about the subject - learn something and educate yourself. Changes to the earth's climate are not new, but rapid warming caused by levels of CO2 that haven't been seen in the earth's atmosphere for at least 650,000 years are.

[Bukefal]

Dude, the changes we are seeing right now are far greater and faster than the background natural rate of change. Try going to your local university and talking to some climatologists about the subject - learn something and educate yourself. Changes to the earth's climate are not new, but rapid warming caused by levels of CO2 that haven't been seen in the earth's atmosphere for at least 650,000 years are.

I am going to university and I have read and listened to climatologists and other sources on this matter. Still, im highly sceptical about this. I think this is just more a natural phenomena which has been here always. Of course I believe there are some human causes, industry etc... but not in such an extent as they make us believe.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I am going to university and I have read and listened to climatologists and other sources on this matter. Still, im highly sceptical about this. I think this is just more a natural phenomena which has been here always. Of course I believe there are some human causes, industry etc... but not in such an extent as they make us believe.

If you have actually read the science I find it difficult to believe that you could form the opinion that what we are seeing is a natural rate of change. For example, how do you explain the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are currently 385ppm, about 35% higher than they have been at any time in recent geological history (ie. throughout the last 10 or so glacial-interglacial cycles CO2 has stayed between 200-300ppm - it is currently at 385ppm and rising). That has clearly been caused by humans. We know we're injecting over 8Gt of 'artificial' (ie fossil fuel) carbon into the natural carbon cycle every year. We know that the sinks in the carbon cycle, particularly the oceans, are slowing their rate of absorbtion of carbon as their buffers are overwhelmed. Sorry mate, I don't think you've actually looked at the science very closely at all.

[Bukefal]

The earth has as always been changing in climate mate. If this everything you state is 100% true, why did this always happened? How do you explain the warmings and climate changes in the past? There were no industries back then, there were no gasses back then, but just natural climate fluctuations without any effect of CO2. I think human influence is minimal, and even if, it's not in such proportions as they make us believe.

There are also scientists from which ive read who mention an important role of solar activity.

[Wild Cobra]

And here's a few square miles of global warming

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/thisweek/2009/05/images/icemelt01.jpg
What is that?

January 1903 to August 2003?

I can show you some radical snow changes on Mt. Hood. I have a pretty good view of it from the park I live next to. Should I take a picture tomorrow, and compare it with another in August?

[Wild Cobra]

huh?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Grinnell_Glacier2.jpg
Grinell Glacier is a poor example of Global warming.

No relevance. It is an ice covered lake, left over from the ice age. Being in a big bowl. Above the timber-line. 7000 ft elevation, at 48.753 degrees latitude. Just cold enough cold enough year round to melt really slowly.

How can anyone think a measly 0.6 C increase in temperature has enough of a change to melt that volume of ice?

Funny how we see the same two or three photographs. If this was real, we should have hundreds of examples. However, the truth is, about as many glaciers are gaining ice as are losing ice.

[baseline bum]

What is that?

January 1903 to August 2003?

I can show you some radical snow changes on Mt. Hood. I have a pretty good view of it from the park I live next to. Should I take a picture tomorrow, and compare it with another in August?

Those are clearly late-season photos in both images. If it was an early-season picture, you'd never see the darker glacier because it'd be covered by snow fields. Seasonal snow is white, not grey. You can easily make out the difference between that seasonal snow field and the glacier in the 1903 image.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The earth has as always been changing in climate mate. If this everything you state is 100% true, why did this always happened? How do you explain the warmings and climate changes in the past? There were no industries back then, there were no gasses back then, but just natural climate fluctuations without any effect of CO2. I think human influence is minimal, and even if, it's not in such proportions as they make us believe.

There are also scientists from which ive read who mention an important role of solar activity.

See, that post just shows me that you don't understand the science at all. Milankovitch cycles (look them up) trigger CO2/CH4 release, and that triggers changes in climate. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has naturally oscillated from 200-300ppm in recent geological history - humans have pushed that to 385ppm and rising, well beyond the natural range. "No gasses"!? Sorry? Before humanity there was no carbon cycle? Come on now, you simply don't know what you are talking about. The issue is that humans have dumped a huge quantity of 'artificial' carbon (that is, carbon that has been stored underground as fossil fuels for tens of millions of years) into the carbon cycle, which has changed the equilibrium of the cycle and thus the climate. It's all explained by the science.

As for solar activity, since the 80s it has been declining while the warming continues. Solar activity is currently as low as it has been in the last century.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Cobra - I have already pointed you to the World Glacier Monitoring Service which unequivocally states that the vast majority of the planet's glaciers are receding, not through photographic evidence, but through satellite mass-balance analysis. Ignoring the evidence again?

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

And here's the 2008 summary, including data from 1980-2008:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html

[Wild Cobra]

Cobra - I have already pointed you to the World Glacier Monitoring Service which unequivocally states that the vast majority of the planet's glaciers are receding, not through photographic evidence, but through satellite mass-balance analysis. Ignoring the evidence again?

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

And here's the 2008 summary, including data from 1980-2008:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html

Some of those data points do in fact show glaciers growing. If we were indeed in a global warming, shouldn't they all be receding?

Now does that site have an agenda, or maybe only started glaciers noted as receding? The number of glaciers they monitor falls far short of the world wide glaciers. How many of the monitored ones are impacted with melting from soot? Then on top of that, we can still expect some degree of melting since we have never started into the next ice age. As long as we are in this warming period, for the last 11,000 years, how can you say it's not natural.

Tell you what. Show me some photo's from say 6,000 BC to 1000 AD. Let's see the natural cycles before we had industrialization.

You alarmists rely on such a small window of observation.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Some of those data points do in fact show glaciers growing. If we were indeed in a global warming, shouldn't they all be receding? (1)

Now does that site have an agenda, or maybe only started glaciers noted as receding? The number of glaciers they monitor falls far short of the world wide glaciers. How many of the monitored ones are impacted with melting from soot? Then on top of that, we can still expect some degree of melting since we have never started into the next ice age. As long as we are in this warming period, for the last 11,000 years, how can you say it's not natural. (2)

Tell you what. Show me some photo's from say 6,000 BC to 1000 AD. Let's see the natural cycles before we had industrialization.

You alarmists rely on such a small window of observation. (3)

1. No. EGW does NOT imply that every part of the earth will warm, or that warming will be uniform. You should know that. You are simply using a syllogism - that the average temperature of the planet is increasing, therefore somehow that means that the same uniform thing will happen across the whole globe. That is not the case.

2. Agenda. Yeah, okay, everyone has an agenda, and it's all designed to rob YOU! :rolleyes

They do not cherrypick their data, they take it from all over the world (as you'd know if you bothered to read the site), and that data shows that over 90% of the world's glaciers are receding. But no, let's just ignore that because it doesn't fit your template of the world. The RATE of decline is what tells us this is not a natural cycle, as does the timing.

3. What? I'm talking about evidence from the last million years, through over 10 glacial-interglacial cycles. The geological record shows us how glaciers have behaved in during pre-industrial time and they don't melt this quickly under natural climatic influence.

I thought you were pretty well read on climate but you keep using the same rhetorical tricks and denier arguments that have already been addressed by the science and laid to rest. Sad, really.

Anyway, back to the topic, in which the OP suggested that a SNOWSTORM was evidence against EGW, when actually it's just an offshoot of a strong El Nino (which influences the path of the jet stream and changes the weather across the entirety of North and South America, the Caribbean and the Pacific basin). Who is using "such a small window of observation" again? :lmao

[Bukefal]

See, that post just shows me that you don't understand the science at all. Milankovitch cycles (look them up) trigger CO2/CH4 release, and that triggers changes in climate. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has naturally oscillated from 200-300ppm in recent geological history - humans have pushed that to 385ppm and rising, well beyond the natural range. "No gasses"!? Sorry? Before humanity there was no carbon cycle? Come on now, you simply don't know what you are talking about. The issue is that humans have dumped a huge quantity of 'artificial' carbon (that is, carbon that has been stored underground as fossil fuels for tens of millions of years) into the carbon cycle, which has changed the equilibrium of the cycle and thus the climate. It's all explained by the science.

As for solar activity, since the 80s it has been declining while the warming continues. Solar activity is currently as low as it has been in the last century.

First you are talking about gasses and the human cause of this warming, and then you say there were gasses before humanity. Of course there were gasses before humanity, but that's a natural process. I meant with gasses, our gasses, cars, industry etc..
You say it yourself, that there are gasses before humanity. So, its natural. Plus, these warmings have little to do with carbon mate and nothing confirms that nor is there any proof.

As for the glaciers, there are glaciers who are receding, but also growing as cobra already pointed out. Plus, that too is a natural phenomena which has been there for thousands of years, even when there was no industrialization. There are reports from before the industrialisation that mention glaciers receding.

Mate, it's just a hype and if you want to be hyped all up, fine, but don't come telling me in here or cobra or someone else that we 'know nothing', just because we have a different opinion. In this thread, you have already said several times to us 'you know nothing', 'learn something', 'educate yourself', 'you don't understand', 'sad', ' :lmao ' . What's with the belittling?
Do you see me or someone else saying that to you, just because we have different opinions? Get over yourself.

If you want to be scared and live up to it, fine, but not everyone believes this, at least in not such an extent. Plus, that you come up with all these nice and pretty numbers and reports, means nothing. Those are measures, not causes and certainly no proof. It does not help to prove your point with, which you are trying.

Of course humanity has a part in the process, I do believe, but not in such a way they make us believe. As I've already said; If people are scared, you can do anything with them and people will spend. This global warming fear and hype is very good for economics----> certain peoples pockets and power.

Besides, no one really knows it. Not the pro-people, nor the anti-people. We can't know and there is no real proof. If its caused by nature or humanity, we don't know, there is no real proof of that, but just theories.

The only thing we certain know is, is that these warmings have always been on earth. Thus, if that's the only thing we know for sure, then it must be clear to set value on that instead of all the unknown theories.

:toast to the climate