E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Dan Joling / AP
Mallards take off from ice as a juvenile trumpeter swan swims by on Friday, April 6, 2012, at Westchester Lagoon in Anchorage, Alaska. The waterfowl made an appearance as nearly an inch of snow was falling on Alaska's largest city.
Anchorage on Saturday surpassed a 57-year-old record for snowfall in one season, the National Weather Service reported.
The old record of 132.6 inches in Alaska's largest city occurred in 1954-1955, it said. But 3.4 inches of snow that fell from midnight to 4 p.m. local time pushed the season total to 133.6 inches -- more than 11 feet, the National Weather Service said.
The total is nearly double Anchorage’s normal amount, The Associated Press said.
The city was 2.5 inches short of the record going into Easter weekend, NBC station KTUU said.
Snow began falling Friday morning, with 0.8 inches accumulating. More fell overnight Friday and throughout the day Saturday.
The season got off to a slow start, KTUU said.
The first snow didn't arrive until the Oct. 30. But each month from November to February there was above-normal snowfall, KTUU said. November saw the greatest snowfall, with 32.4 inches, close to three times the average for the month.
By March, Anchorage was on pace to shatter the record, but a slightly below normal month seemed to dim the chances of breaking the 1954-55 record, KTUU said.
No snow fell from mid-March until Friday, The Associated Press reported. Going into April, 3.3 inches were still needed to break the record.
Records have been kept at or very near the current location near the Ted Stevens International Airport since 1953.
City snow removal crews have hauled more than 2.5 million cubic yards of snow to the city's six snow disposal sites, which are close to capacity, The Associated Press reported. Maintenance and operations director Alan Czajkowski said that volume would almost fill the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans.
At the height of the snow overload, many residential streets were rimmed by snow-walled canyons that towered over fences and shielded homes. Some roofs collapsed, mostly on older commercial buildings with flat roofs.
On Friday afternoon, falling ice outside Anchorage crushed a car, trapping a 32-year-old woman inside and shutting the Seward Highway. Rescuers and passersby freed the woman and got her to a hospital, where she is recovering with severe head and neck injuries.
This article includes reporting by The Associated Press.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
I live in North Idaho. Our average snowfall is 66". Three of the last five winters we've had over 120" with one year over 187". This winter was cooler than normal, less snow, with no subzero temperatures. It did snow Wednesday. I just hope it doesn't go until 29 Apr like last year.
Guess the cooler weather in North Idaho means the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE is also cooler.... Oh, right, it isn't.
Here in Oklahoma we had a very mild winter. No snow fall accumulation. Spring has been chilly though.
The weather: out of our control now and always.
The weather forecasters: An elite group that can be wrong, day after day, and STILL keep their jobs.
The 'global warming' freaks: A mixture of the two.
I too live close to North Idaho and it's crazy that our record snow shattered Anchorage's record snow. This year I know we've had fairly normal precipitation. Though I hate the snow, this summer we'll all be glad here in the northwest that we had what we had. Logic says the rest of the country will have above average wild fires.
Must be "global cooling!" Er.... "global warming!" Er... a snowy November.... Oh well. That's life!
Do a little research, folks, the science behing global warming and the resulting climate change predicts increased extremes in any local weather patterns. Harsher winters and record snowfalls in some locales in absolutely in keeping with the predictions, even though, the scientists will tell you we have not yet begun to see the affects of climate change.
More than 6,000 heat records were broken in the USA in February and March, but we have just one snowfall record and all the sudden the global warming deniers think they've been proven right.
Keep worrying about those heat islands in the continental USA... Ha! Ha!
1. The global temperature anomaly has been released for the month of February, 2012 and the average global temperature has cooled by 0.12 degrees celsius...
2. The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for January, 2012 has cooled by 0.09 degrees celsius, not totally unexpected for a La Nina January...
According to the UAH satellite data on 'Global temperature Anomaly' from NASA...
The global temperature average from the lower tropospheric measurements, avoids the ERRORS associated with; 'heat islands', missing data from certain regions, calibration variations, etc, etc...
If you do not know how the data base is constructed, the length of the data, or the data ERROR rates. You do not know what you are discussing... see http://www.climate-skeptic.com/temperature_measurement/index.html
For a indepth discussion about the different world temperature data bases... see http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/
It's Obamas fault!
Every time I read an Article like this one I wonder about Global Warming. The Articles are all similar: "This is the hottest/coldest/rainiest/snowiest season that ________— has seen since ____". In this case it's the snowiest season in 57 years. Where we experiencing Global Warming, evidenced by dramatic climate changes, 57 years ago? Think about it. BTW: This is an NBC Article so believe it at your own risk.
Here in eastern Mass., we've had exactly seven inches of snow all winter. Last winter, we had over five feet.
I like the "Cycle" advocates - if cycles are your measuring stick - then you have to factor in all cycles of life. There have been mass die-offs in the past and recovery... I wonder if there are connections between different cycles and what they result in. Pray the cycle of Disco and the cycle of Full Metal Jousting never occurs at the same time...
AC, the global land/sea temperatures in February were 0.37C ABOVE the 20th century average.
That is now about 323months in a row for which the global temperature has been above the 20th century average.
How many hundreds of times do we need to roll box-cars in a row before you admit that we're not seeing any snake-eyes?
If you subtract out the random variations from solar cycles, ENSO variations, and volcanic aerosols (which long term average to zero), the temperature can be seen to rise steadily and relentlessly year after year.
Couldnt do any skiing in N Minnesota this year, not anything consistent. Not only did it melt away quickly their was very little of it..
For those who cannot seem to understand why WARMER weather, not colder weather, causes more snow, I will try a simple explanation: The amount of moisture that air can carry depends on its temperature. The warmer the air is, the more moisture it is capable of carrying. Snow is made of moisture. So, the closer the air is to the point that allows snow formation, the more snow you get. Just a hair warmer and you get rain. If you stop and think for a minute yourself, when the weather is right at freezing is when you get those heavy wet snows (that weigh a lot), but when it is considerably colder you get light fluffy snow, and if you live in a place like North Dakota and a cold front passes and the temp drops to 30 below, you may get only flurries or no snow at all because the air simply cannot carry that much moisture.
Yes, I know this is an over simplification and there are layers of different temperatures at diffrerent levels, but it is generally quite true. And the relationship of moisture to temperaturwe is how pilots (such as I am) can predict icing conditions at different altitudes and fly above or below certain levels to avoid it.
I live in Alabama and there simply is no spring this year. Spring flowers have been skimpy and sparse, it at all. Of about 150 iris, only 3 have bloomed --- 6 weeks early. No flowers (meaning no fruit) at all on my pear and plum trees. The peach trees seem to have done well surprisingly because they are a hybrid made to require less cold weather to set blooms. I do love my spring flowers, but this year has been the worst of my lifetime --- no winter to speak of and no spring.
It would be a shame if any casual readers happen to be mislead by AC Robertson's pseudo-science post above.
From HIS OWN SOURCE, http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/ ,
AC's first reference is one of those pseudo science sites. You can disregard it because it's just a churn site for garbage. The "YALE Forum on Climate Change and the Media" has this to say about his second source (that is, the reputable one - which AC evidently didn't take the time to actually read):
Looking up and down this thread, I see the same old tired arguments from those who couldn't pass a science class if it were taught at the 5th-grade level. They'll continue to deny any responsibility for our environment until it literally falls down around their ears and probably even then say there was nothing they could do.
Sadly, they'll take the rest of us down with them.
AG99:
Even more sadly AG99, denialist are the people who think all problems are solved with guns. Guns make very poor farming tools. When we are hit with the inevitable drought, or when farm productivity begins its inevitable decline, these are the very idiots who are going to starve. They are the idiots who will kill for survival and worse, they will even wipe out seed stocks. Denialists are not just simpletons, they are dangerous.
You cannot overestimate the power of stupidity.
Oh ... I dunno ... While I fully agree that we're going down ...
(My favorite metaphor is that we're all passengers on a bus that has gone ... not "is going" ... over the side of a cliff.)
... it's a helluva ride down and there's no reason not to enjoy it. After all, did you think you were going to get out of this alive?
So, I continue to continue
to pretend
my life will never end
and flowers never bend
with the rainfall.
... Paul Simon
AG99,
These Climate Change deniers suffer from the "Black Knight Syndrome". There is simply no way to convince them. They will never be defeated by the evidence in front of them regardless of how strong it is.
Ever notice how you can determine someones politics almost invariably if they are a Climate Change denier? It goes far beyond skepticism. A skeptic always questions, but will concede to overwhelming evidence. Not Climate Change deniers. These are folks who hold infallible beliefs. You can never change those beliefs because they are not based in logic, evidence or fact. Climate Change denying goes right along with many other "political" beliefs. It's not really about science. Science is really just Liberal propoganda anyway.
You are correct in that they will never sway and will try to take us all with them denying all the way through the very last day of mankind.
Ain't that the truth!
I have been living in S. Florida for over 20 years now and every year it's "hurricane season will be worse this year because of La Nina" unless the story is "this year hurricanes will be worse because of El Nino". The exception to these years are the ones where "hurricanes will be worse because of there being no La Nina" or "this year will be worse because of the lack of El Nino"
Dear Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmists:
For your education and edification, the following is offered to you at no charge:
I hadn't heard that yet, but if it is true then we actually do have something to fear from storms this year.
Study after study confirms that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a reality. There is no longer any serious argument on that topic. Try this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
It is a waste of time to argue with denialists. The only place you will ever find these science dropouts is on boards like this. They cannot refute the overwhelming consensus that AGW is correct, but they can cherry pick statistics that "support" their denial.
Folks, you owe it to yourselves to check out denialists' links. More often than not, you will discover they have not read the sites/cites themselves, or they would discover that they indeed support AGW.
I just hate to see misinformation being spread around like "manure". (I pick up litter when I walk to try to keep the roads a little cleaner too.) The "Chef" above posted something that looks like it might be reliable information. It's not. Here's the truth.
This pile of lies he quotes was put out by "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine". Sounds impressive, doesn't it? It's actually Arthur Robinson’s farm waaaay down at the end of a dirt road in very rural Oregon. Literally! It's four farm houses. This web site tracked it down on Google Earth: http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/OregonInstituteOfScienceAndMedicine.html.
And the founder of the "Institute", George Gilder? Why, he's the guy who believes, "that men are superior to women in the workplace and in creative ventures outside the home, due to inborn, biologically determined differences between men and women." He's also a big supporter of creationism. That fits. All that fossil fuel we're burning up in just a few decades were created by God in just six days, right?
The "Oregon Petition" itself is almost 15 years old now. It started life as a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shortly thereafter, the National Academy issued a news release stating that, "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
The headliner signer was Frederick Seitz and he really did sign it. Unfortunately, Seitz was one of those brilliant young men who seemed to burn out near the end of his life. (Sir Isaac Newton ended his days writing religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.) In their book Merchants of Doubt, science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway state that Seitz "justified his increasing social and intellectual isolation by blaming others". Unfortunately, Seitz died a few years ago and isn't around to repudiate the petition in the light of the overwhelming evidence today.
But others are. In 2001, Scientific American reported: Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition, one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Eleven years ago, only one of an initial sample of 1,400 was an actual climate researcher!
Check my other messages in to this page to see how REAL climate researchers TODAY come down on the issue.
Got any more manure to spread around, Chef?
"Really" above is typical of RWNJ's who simply invent what they wish to see.
Case in point ...
It's there ... it's even linked (when I checked) at the top of this article.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/08/11083494-fur-loss-open-sores-seen-in-polar-bears
What I want to know from all those who say global warming is definite and that man definitely caused it, is what is the weather going to be like for the next 12 months. Warmer? Cooler? Wetter? Dryer? More snow? Less snow? More hurricanes? Less hurricanes? Oh, and where will all this occur? I'm sure this is a no brainer for all those in the know. But, dummies like me just want to be informed Do tell!
witchrunner:
We know you are terribly clever by exposing AGW for the fraud it clearly is. Somehow though there are those AGW believers who, unlike you, do not believe that climate and weather mean the same thing. I know, it's just not fair that they're getting all the press, and someone like yourself who has seen through the scam is treated like an idiot.
Knowing that smart folks like yourself are on the job gives me comfort. In exchange for that feeling of well-being, I'm going to help you with your request for a weather forecast. Go to weather.com.
Mr. Rockwell:
What say you to this:
This site and the listing of dozens of scientists from around the world refutes everthing in your post # 29.7. Gosh, you true believers just want to throw out common sense and worship at the alter of lib politics.
you know the http: comes before the //
en.wikipedia.org/wiki?list_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Yes, you'll reply that the source is wiki; however, keep in mind that a review of an independent board found that wiki was far more accurate that Encylopedia Britannica.
Also, Google or Bing "scientists who oppose global warming" and you'll receive 11.5 million hits in less than one second.
Really,
On the contrary, there are a lot of conservatives who admit that climate change is real and is mostly man made or man influenced. And it's hardly the case that climate change acceptors have the same ideas about what we should do about it. We are hardly anywhere near as lock step as the deniers. It is about science.
Do you really think we would make our own lives more complicated and expensive just to mess with you deniers? Don't flatter yourself. If it was about wealth transfer, there's far better ways to do it.
To me, and to many climate change believers, I think one of the smartest things we can do is to develop alternatives before we become desperate. What is wrong with developing new business opportunities and giving people more options? It shouldn't take an economist to know that energy prices are constantly trending upward and have been for over 40 years. Maybe alternatives seem more costly today, but when developed, it will improve. Renewable energy sources aren't dependent on a finite supply. Technology will make these better and cheaper, but it takes some time. Fossil fuel based energy will only continue to rise in price. And taking steps to clean up fossil fuel use not only lessens the amount of CO2 and other waste we dump into the atmosphere, but they also make the use of the fuels more efficient.
I'm an engineer who has been around industry my whole life and I can tell you that many regulations designed to reduce emissions have contributed to higher efficiencies and even profitable byproducts that were formerlyjust wasted being dumped into the environment. Efforts to clean up our environment have created a multi-billion dollar environmental management industry and millions of jobs. This has not only been good for our environment but also good for the economy. This industry just created more wealth for the owners rather than transferring it to the poor and middle class, but everybody has benefited to some degree.
But I'm wasting my time because you are clearly one who will remain in full denial. You have it figured out. It's all part of a liberal conspiracy and we are some crafty SOBs. Now that is a fine example of using logic to approach the issue. What better way to explain something that looks solid, but you know in your heart just can't be right. It has to be a conspiracy.
After the winter from Hell last year we went to the warmest and snow free this year. Trees are all budded out, but terrible dry. Saw a butterfly on Good Friday. Geese have migrated further north three weeks ago. So. Mn.
If my math serves me right the old record in Alaska was 132.6 inches, and with the new shofall the new record is 133.6 inches, it is not 11 feet above the record. It is only 1 foot. Anybody get this?
Gratefully, I live in the south so we have no worry about this much snow.
Boy, what an insult having Ted Stevens name on an airport let alone anything..talk about an alaskan leader of corruption...ahhhhhh....
Just drove back from Tahoe down 395. Saw snow almost all the way down. Coming in through the back way I could see snow in San Bernardino Mountains too. Global warming freaks will try to take credit for it. You watch.
Enteresting thing. While in Tahoe. Read many posted history placards from the Forestry service mentioning many ice ages and melt downs. Who was it a million years ago to blame for global warming then? Fred Flinstone and his foot powered car?
So a lot of snow and cold air during winter in Tahoe means the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES are actually going down -- that Global Warming is just a huge hoax? Next you'll be saying that the Gobi Desert is going to green up because of all the rain it's getting............
Perhaps you should try actually reading about the causes of ice ages instead of making silly comments. (Wikipedia is a good start.) The primary cause is believed to be long-term cycles in the Earth's orbit and axis tilt, but naturally varying carbon dioxide levels (for example when the oceans absorb and release CO2) also play a major role.
So if there weren't cavemen with matches available to start forest fires 20 million years ago, does that mean we can't start them now with matches?
Some things can be triggered in multiple ways. What all of the major warm periods have in common is elevated CO2 levels. In the past, lots of things caused CO2 to be released, including minor warmings caused by orbital variations, plate tectonics, etc.
There is zero reason to believe that our artificial release of CO2 now will have any different long-term effect (on the scale of thousands of years) than natural releases of CO2 had in the past. In the short-term, we're releasing CO2 so absurdly quickly that an exceptionally large number of species will fail to adapt quickly enough to avoid extinction. The sixth great extinction event of the past 500 million years is now well under way, partly as a result of this, and much if not most of what is soon to come will likely be due directly to raising CO2 levels.
Bodes well for Alaskan salmon.
So much for global warming, well I guess it is global warming when you get that much snow, or is it global warming when you dont get enough snow, or is it both. The hockey stick theory will allway have both ways.
Enjoy the snow.
No, it's global warming when data shows that the oceans and atmosphere are both warmer, which they are. (2011 set a record high for 0 to 2000 meter global ocean heat content, according to NOAA/NODC.) Other things, like more or less precipitation in some areas (on statistical average over a number of years), can be effects of warming.
It's global warming when the average surface temperature of the entire planet goes up.
Is English a second language for you?
How does it bode well for any kind of salmon -- a fish whose survival requires more than just a lot of water in the rivers.
This story is obviously released far too early.....Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, hasn't had a chance to weigh in yet. (But when he does weigh in, I'm guessing from looking at recent photos of him that he'll probably "tipper" the scales.) Here's the deal, folks. The earth gets warm....and then it cools....and then it gets warm again. If you think buying a battery powered car somehow saves us from global warming, then just sit tight for a few years. You'll be trying to start that car when batteries are too cold to work. We'll figure it out eventually.
That last time I saw a picture of Al it looked like he was tippering the scales at about 260#.
I'm sitting here reading somebody's IDEA that we have "endless" supplies of oil, gas and other fuels.
OUT OF THE ORDINARY is that thing called POPULATION EXPLOSION where we're fast approaching 7 Billion people and then 9 Billion after that--
I HAVE a Battery Operated Car (sometimes) as it's a Hybrid. I change oil every 50,000 miles because my gas engine does NOT run all the time, mostly on Highways. Who weighs in with all of this is people who really DO want to do MORE than just "talk about it"....
Aside from Pollution (meaning it's something that's in the AIR, WATER and SOIL you breathe, drink and eat out of) there ARE other reasons to get technologies to "change", it's called inflation when gasoline hits $6.00 per gallon.
We're also looking at "train upgrades". Jalenorigby have any comments on "wasting our time" with Train/Rail System upgrades?
Anyways, many people ARE ready to convert over AND there are others who are also looking to reduce USE of Electric, Gas and other fuels in their own homes by doing the "add-ons" associated with Wind, Solar and Human Powered systems. (e.g. riding a bicycle to generate electricity -- yes you have to buy the generator circuits).
Have a great Easter folks !!
C_P
"Here's the deal, folks. The earth gets warm...and then it cools...and then it gets warm again."
Sounds really scientific! Jalenorigby, I think you have it ALL figured out pal (forget what the scientists are saying). You're a real nuts-and-bolts genius
One thing folks forget {or don't believe} is that this planet has wiped the slate clean 3 times and killed damn near everything on it, it's going to happen again sooner or later and there's nothing we can do. These idiots can't predict the weather for tomorrow and were supposed to buy into the "climate change" theory, hardly.
Weather tends to be chaotic; climate change in the form of warming is a direct consequence of adding more heat (greenhouse gases), and is fairly consistent and steady when you look at global averages. Look up the NOAA/NODC ocean heat data.
Yes rely on those ocean heat records...
Prior to the thousands of Argos buoys, starting in 2003. The scientist were relying on surface water temperatures measured by satellites. They were inaccurate when; the wind blew, waves or clouds , were present, etc, etc. Check out the NOAA-16 satellite that was giving erroneous data for a decade...
Prior to the 1980's the temperatures were from engine intake water temperatures on very limited areas of the Global Oceans. Their accuracy was also in question +/-5 degrees, due to engine room temperatures...
Prior to this they were from thermometers, that were cast over-board behind ships. Again VERY LIMITED coverage of the GLOBAL Oceans...
Unfortunately for the AGW people, the ARGOS data is indicating a DECREASING trend in GLOBAL temperatures. But they will cite; the Thai Gulf data (avg water depth 100') and mention that the La Nina and Pacific Oscillation is throwing the Pacific data off... Ha! Ha!
AC, satellite observations show that the earth is currently emitting less energy to space than it is receiving from the sun.
Where exactly do you think that energy is going, if not into heating the oceans?
Well after reading all these comments the one thing I get is the only right people are the ones who believe in global warming...everyone else is a fool...and according to them we are doomed. So since they are right and we are doomed anyway the best thing I can see to do is forget about it and continue to enjoy life just like I have been doing and just wait for the end to come. No point in trying to change a already doomed future so lets just enjoy the time we have left. :)
I'm not going to weigh in on the global warmng issue. There are those who will not believe in it and won't change their minds. It's like trying to convince a christian that Jesus is a fictional character. Not gonna happen.
I just want to say that AL GORE NEVER CLAIMED HE INVENTED THE INTERNET. A statement he made at one time was twisted and distorted for political reasons during an election year. All the Republican brain-dead monkeys out there jumped right on that just like Bush's handlers knew they would. Today, for some reason, they still do.
For the record, there are just as many brain-dead monkeys out there who identify with the democratic party. Critical thinking in this country is nearly as extinct as the Dodo bird.
It would be a shame if any casual readers happen to be mislead by AC Robertson's pseudo-science post above.
From HIS OWN SOURCE, http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/ ,
AC's first reference is one of those pseudo science sites. You can disregard it because it's just a churn site for garbage. The "YALE Forum on Climate Change and the Media" has this to say about his second source (that is, the reputable one - which AC evidently didn't take the time to actually read):
Mr. Rockwell:
It equally would be a shame for casual and uninformed GW alarmists to be ignorant of the following:
The vast majority of the Oregon Petition signers can't be verified, and of 26 PhD signers contacted by Scientific American, only 11 said they still agreed with the petition, while 5 others didn't respond at all.
My mom lives in Anchorage and she was just telling me on wed. that sun was starting to melt some of the snow during the day and she was able to see some ground finally, guess not anymore. Sorry mom.
Hey Al, ya you Algore. You flippin fraudulent moron. Hows this for global warming?! Oh its climate change now? Anyone that buys any of the ridiculous garbage that comes out of the Lefts bag of smoke and mirror BS tricks must be an utter retard.
Ed your obviously the retard here....let me educate you and all the rest of you "low information" voters out there.....snow is precipitation not temperature!!! In actuality more snow happens with warmer temperatures because warmer air holds more moisture....are the wheels starting to turn yet Ed???
Good try Derrick but there's little hope of educating the mentally challenged morons who would rather believe 'scientists' sponsored by Oil Companies and scientifically ignorant preacher types. I think some of them actually do understand but won't accept it until it can be shown to be a sign of their god's late promised return, though it's pretty obvious they're going to be even more surprised to find that they're not going to miss it by being raptured and that it's not going to end in 7 years with their sky spirit returning to save them and that they get to live through it all just like the rest of us.
A suggestion, Ed.
Since you seem to be able to get online, search for the definitions of LOCAL and GLOBAL. Note how they differ.
Then do this again for WEATHER and CLIMATE.
And finally, do it for SNOW and COLD.
English is a marvelous language for expressing different concepts. You should learn to use it coherently.
The same people who don't believe the scientists are the ones who DO believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, all the religious bulls**t and everything that comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Fortunately, the science is true whether you believe it or not. If you're typing on a computer and posting drivel about Al Gore and Climate Change being a "hoax", you're proving that science works and your brain doesn't.
So here is a science lesson for all the people who don't know anything about science.
In order to get snow, you need heat. There needs to be heat in order to get water vapor from the ground to the air. So more snow means somewhere was indeed hotter than usual.
Now as far an Anchorage, I'd love to see the average winter temperatures for the last few years. Remember, whether it's 25 degrees or 30 degrees, you're gonna get snow either way.
The main problem here is the lack of understand of science. The science illiterate don't trust scientists simply because they cannot follow what they are saying, and get confused, and then defensive.
And this hockey stick things is because of how the graphs are scaled. There are thousands of years of very constant CO2 levels, then within the last 2 hundred or so they rapidly increase. It's not a trick, it's just science. It's not the scientists fault that people are scared of what they don't understand.
I wonder how many people who believe (Belief: refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof) global warming is false have ever talked to a scientist (just about any scientist; biologist, chemist, physicist, geologist) about it.
To merely state facts, one of the tenets of the global warming theory IS extreme temperature events, including colder winters. I'm not a scientist (though it seems hard to deny that at least part of our crisis is man-made), but if you want to act like the smart guy, why not at least read up on the actual theory before you try to play the skeptic? Do you really take the words "global warming" at face value?
The morons on here who say this is proof there is no global warming are MORONS. As some places cool, others will warm. Last year, Alaska was warmer than Chicago on average and we had more snow. This year we've hardly had any snow and we had 80's in March. Climate CHANGE, you idiots. CHANGE.
My Dearest, Lovey Melissa:
Perhaps one should look into the mirror when engaging in name calling. Please endeavor to become an informed poster who engages in a lively exchange of opinions, sans name calling. For your perusal, I offer the following:
Why repeat stuff? -- see my comment above in response.
I love how people just think global warming means everything is warmer n that record snowfall means global cooling.....READ A BOOK, EINSTEINS!!!
global warming causes more snow and cold weather. Oops, it's climate change. GW causes climate change. I thought that climate changed throughout the seasons and throughout the history of the world. In fact, palm trees once grew in England. But, climate change caused England to become colder. Gee, what was the cause way, way back then? Some kind of funky global warming?
There are several things than can cause a cooling trend ... extended solar minimums, dust and aerosols from volcanoes, changes in ocean currents, long-term cycles in the Earth's orbit, etc. None of which invalidates the present warming trend caused primarily by greenhouse gas emissions.
Hi chef de la manure ... gonna report me again!!!
Here it is in words that maybe you can understand.
Global climate change means that things will be different than they were. Records will be broken. Patterns will change. Nothing will be the same. That's what is happening.
What you're doing would be called, "Wishful thinking" ... except that "thinking" is too strong a word for what you are doing.
Dear Mr. Rockwell:
Climate has been changning since day one of the earth. Records have been broken and will be broken thoughout the existence of the earth. So what? This means nothing. Nothing remains the same. The nature of existence is continous change. We, you, no one can do anything about it.
BTW, iin your second sentence, the word "maybe" more precisely should be 'might,' as you're questioning the probability of what I might understand. Not that you might understand this.
YOU'RE RIGHT! (Far right ???) FOR ONCE. I didn't understand it. It was gibberish.
Check out my total destruction of your Salem-News ("Serving Oregon and the Pacific Northwest" -- IMPRESSIVE!) cut and paste job below. By the way, why are you posting a four year old news clip? Is that the best you can do???
Mr. Rockwell:
Respond or, more appropriately for your style of discussion, slander the dozens of scientists listed in the below site:
This site and the listing of dozens of scientists from around the world refutes everthing in your post # 29.7. Gosh, you true believers just want to throw out common sense and worship at the alter of lib politics.
you know the http: comes before the //
en.wikipedia.org/wiki?list_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Yes, you'll reply that the source is wiki; however, keep in mind that a review of an independent board found that wiki was far more accurate that Encylopedia Britannica.
Yes, Wikipedia is usually fairly accurate, but the number of opposing scientists they list really isn't that many ... consistent with the 3% estimate for climate scientists still not convinced of AGW.
The true term would be "Global Climate Change". Global warming is just easier for the deniers to say. In addition, weather is not the same as climate.
Most hard science scientists disagree with you, vwterry. Global climate change is the norm for all planets all of the time and always will be the norm.
chef de la manure ...
"Most hard science" ??? Really!!??
Mr. Rockwell:
From the very liberal Salem, OR newspaper:
This is FOUR YEARS OLD! (And reporting on the doings of a four building farm at the end of a dirt road in Southern Oregon counts as "local news" anyway.) See my total destruction of this garbage below.
Mr. Rockwell:
Yes, it's still relevant and many of these scientists testified before Congress on this issue. Please also see this:
This site and the listing of dozens of scientists from around the world refutes everthing in your post # 29.7. Gosh, you true believers just want to throw out common sense and worship at the alter of lib politics.
you know the http: comes before the //
en.wikipedia.org/wiki?list_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Yes, you'll reply that the source is wiki; however, keep in mind that a review of an independent board found that wiki was far more accurate that Encylopedia Britannica.
Where I live:
2010-2011 winter: Record snowfall
2011-2012 winter: Record warmth
Huh.
Before you go calling others 'utter retards', maybe you should educate yourself a little bit on your so-called 'ridiculous garbage'. Let me help you out here - these extreme weather patterns that the world is seeing (especially this winter) like -40 in Europe, record snowfall in Alaska, and 70 deg all of March in Chicago, are classic, textbook manifestations of global warming. Maybe for you, someone who assumes he knows everything about the subject simply by reading the title given to the subject, global warming is a huge misnomer. Matter of fact, what many, such as yourself, don't realize is that we will all actually FREEZE to death first before we warm up...or heat up....or burn up....or melt......or whatever else you may be misconstruing in your 'educated' mind. Those temperature fluctuations will become more and more extreme and those are the effects of the CORE temperature of the earth being raised barely a .5 of a degree. A degree, my friend, is an ACTUAL measurement - it's not a trick, it's not smoke - it's not a theory - it's a measured FACT. But, why am I even trying - the info, the research, the material is out there - if you really wanted to know. Maybe your attitude is just a way of justifying your frivolous and wasteful behavior.
You sure did a lot of typing to post utter unfactual jibberish.
Happy Easter to all my Christian brethren. Our savior Jesus Christ is risen.
Dearest VTLAT:
Please educate yourself before you deign to educate others:
Gawd! You've posted this crap four times now.
I'm warnin' ya. I'll start cross posting my total destruction if you keep this up.
Global warming or not, what is wrong with having cleaner air anyway?
Nothing is wrong with having cleaner air, but at what cost? Are brownouts and rolling blackouts going to become the norm? The latest EPA regulations are causing some coal fired power plants to shut down. The EPA's NEW regulations guarentee that no new ones will be built. Are there going to be enough wind and solar generating stations to take up the slack?
At what cost. Nothing but another global extinction event. Somebody else posted that this would be number three. (And a denier posted it! Will wonders never cease.) Too right, that. Enjoy!!
Good Handle, Mean, it suits you.
No cracked one, guess again, normally warm moist air cannot travel that far north during the winter months as to supply the artic atmosphere with ample water vapor to produce heavy snow.
Water vapor cannot travel very far towards the poles in winters because it normally encounters cold fronts which causes water vapor to condensate and produce rain or snow before it reaches polar regions during the winter months.
Artic regions actually receive very little snow, but the snow that does fall in these regions, can last for centuries.
Conversely, the atmosphere of desert regions, just north or south of the tropics, contains a very high percentage of absolute humidity relative to the artic atmosphere.
However, the warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold without producing rain or snow.
The key term concerning the production of rain or snow, is relative humidity.
I just spent the last two hours reading up on atmospheric realitive humidity. Basically those scientists who are sceptical of climate change tend to beleve the data, While those who take climate change as gospel discount the data.
I thought it was the skeptics who ignored or discounted data.
Fred, the concept of relative humidity, specific humidity, and absolute humidity are only a tiny part of the sciences of meterology and climatology.
If you knew nothing, or a bit less than what you appear to know about climatology now, at least your cognitive processes should take into account basic principles of probability.
Yes, 3 percent of climatologists assert that man made global warming is erroneous and 97 percent of climatologists assert that the current trend in global warming is man made.
Those percious 3 percent can be right. My advice to you however, is to never ever take calculated risks based on pure chance, on anything of importance. Stick with charity raffle tickets and bingo.
Mr. Anderson:
You're quite incorrect. Please take time to become and informed poster and one who posts facts, rather than one who applies political beliefs to science. Please read the following article from the most very liberal Salem, OR daily newspaper.
OK ... I've had it. Here it is again. (SEE!! I can copy and paste too!)
-------------------
I just hate to see misinformation being spread around like "manure". (I pick up litter when I walk to try to keep the roads a little cleaner too.) The "Chef" above posted something that looks like it might be reliable information. It's not. Here's the truth.
This pile of lies he quotes was put out by "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine". Sounds impressive, doesn't it? It's actually Arthur Robinson’s farm waaaay down at the end of a dirt road in very rural Oregon. Literally! It's four farm houses. This web site tracked it down on Google Earth: http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/OregonInstituteOfScienceAndMedicine.html.
And the founder of the "Institute", George Gilder? Why, he's the guy who believes, "that men are superior to women in the workplace and in creative ventures outside the home, due to inborn, biologically determined differences between men and women." He's also a big supporter of creationism. That fits. All that fossil fuel we're burning up in just a few decades were created by God in just six days, right?
The "Oregon Petition" itself is almost 15 years old now. It started life as a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shortly thereafter, the National Academy issued a news release stating that, "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
The headliner signer was Frederick Seitz and he really did sign it. Unfortunately, Seitz was one of those brilliant young men who seemed to burn out near the end of his life. (Sir Isaac Newton ended his days writing religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.) In their book Merchants of Doubt, science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway state that Seitz "justified his increasing social and intellectual isolation by blaming others". Unfortunately, Seitz died a few years ago and isn't around to repudiate the petition in the light of the overwhelming evidence today.
But others are. In 2001, Scientific American reported: Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition, one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Eleven years ago, only one of an initial sample of 1,400 was an actual climate researcher!
Check my other messages in to this page to see how REAL climate researchers TODAY come down on the issue.
Got any more manure to spread around, Chef?
All those trillions of snowflakes, I wonder if there's intelligent life on any of them
ok let me say this again for all you uneducated low information voters who still believe global warming does'nt exist......SNOW IS PRECIPITATION!! not temperature!!! and EVERYTHING happening now was predicted 30 years ago...the warming that's taken place globally over the last 100 yrs (about 1.4 degrees F)would normally take the earth naturally (without man's interference or global catastrophy like a super volcano eruption)take close to 10,000 years to warm that much. soil and ice core samples prove this
Climate change, what a stupid thing to argue about. Climate change is a natural occurence which has been happening for thousands of years. The earth cools for a period of time and then it warms up for a period of time and so on. The lib tree huggers just invented the term global warming so they could scare ignorant people into going green and earth worship. Just another one of their "save the whale" routines. Providing you with shoddy scientific "proof" that really doesn't prove that the warming period we are in is anything out of the ordinary The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Darwin, buddy, where are you? You need to "talk" to people like this guy Kenny.
I sometimes wonder if deniers actually make themselves feel better when they spout this stuff. If would be interesting to be able to actually see the mental pathways they experience. (At a distance, of course. Wouldn't want to get too close to something like that.)
Perhaps you gentlemen need to beef up on facts. Try this for starters:
Chef we all would have been quite interested as to see what you understand about the subject. You have a pasted data contrived of dubious proportions that has no characteristics of any scientific journal that I have ever read. " A flood of scientists" means what? Your so-called information is laughable. It cites no field studies, longitudal studies or otherwise. On the bright side, consider yourself fortunate to have gotten a respond from me or from Porter, because normally I don't slum. At least you seem to have learned how to copy and paste.
This is extremely consistent with the theory of global warming - warming temperatures in the Arctic means more moisture in the air which translates to the potential for greater snowfall. Of course a few seasons of increased snow fall does NOT equate to climate change, but increased snowfall is supported by the theory. The earth is warming - it has been since the little ice age. Many scientists believe that humans have affected the rate of global warming by their use of fossil fuels and the increased CO2 levels created by such use. I tend to believe that this is true. I also tend to believe that the facts that I have seen support the notion that human activity has in fact affected global warming - we just don't know exactly how much. The world has been much warmer in the past than it is today - it has also been much colder. We are currently in a warm summer day between ice ages and inevitably the ice ages will return - that's been the geologic cycle for a while, but even in an interglacial period there can be a lot of variability in the earths temperature- we have lots of science to support that and don't really need alarmists on either side of the fence.
Sooooo it was warming 57 years ago when the record was set???? hahahahahaha oh my John
Dearest Mr. Pollard:
What say you to these facts:
And ... having no shame whatsoever ... you even vote up your own comment. (I can tell because the vote is posted as soon as the comment is.)
----------------------
I just hate to see misinformation being spread around like "manure". (I pick up litter when I walk to try to keep the roads a little cleaner too.) The "Chef" above posted something that looks like it might be reliable information. It's not. Here's the truth.
This pile of lies he quotes was put out by "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine". Sounds impressive, doesn't it? It's actually Arthur Robinson’s farm waaaay down at the end of a dirt road in very rural Oregon. Literally! It's four farm houses. This web site tracked it down on Google Earth: http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/OregonInstituteOfScienceAndMedicine.html.
And the founder of the "Institute", George Gilder? Why, he's the guy who believes, "that men are superior to women in the workplace and in creative ventures outside the home, due to inborn, biologically determined differences between men and women." He's also a big supporter of creationism. That fits. All that fossil fuel we're burning up in just a few decades were created by God in just six days, right?
The "Oregon Petition" itself is almost 15 years old now. It started life as a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shortly thereafter, the National Academy issued a news release stating that, "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
The headliner signer was Frederick Seitz and he really did sign it. Unfortunately, Seitz was one of those brilliant young men who seemed to burn out near the end of his life. (Sir Isaac Newton ended his days writing religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.) In their book Merchants of Doubt, science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway state that Seitz "justified his increasing social and intellectual isolation by blaming others". Unfortunately, Seitz died a few years ago and isn't around to repudiate the petition in the light of the overwhelming evidence today.
But others are. In 2001, Scientific American reported: Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition, one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Eleven years ago, only one of an initial sample of 1,400 was an actual climate researcher!
Check my other messages in to this page to see how REAL climate researchers TODAY come down on the issue.
Got any more manure to spread around, Chef?
Holy Cow, you are one wordy SOB, all that just to say thier full of it?
@BigBenAlaska
Now there is a record to be proud of!!