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:
Whoop! whoop! global warming...shake your groove thang shake your groove thang yeah yeah.
I tell you the snow follows the old ice box theory of climate exactly. That the world i mean ice box is warming from the outside, while keeping avg temps constant on the inside because of the melting polar ice caps i mean block of ice at the bottom. And because of constant avg temps, for every warm area like chicago & the midwest, you will need an equally & opposite cold area like alaska.
Mr grover, the gop, & the rushbo say that there is no man-made global warming. That, as 97% of the scientists say, co2 from cars, planes, boats, space heating, & power plants is causing global warming. But that man-made co2 from humans is not the cause.
I am very jealous! Montana didn't get it's full amount of snow either! I don't think it's global warming though, it's just NORMAL!!!!! NORMAL!!!!! NORMAL!!!!! So I'm not gonna shake my groove thang - I don't know where it is anyway!
Global warming? LOL
The "sky is falling nuts" had to change the name to "climate change". LOL
Arizona Dumbleass, it wasn't environmentalists who changed "global warming" to "climate change." It was the high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in the Bush government and the Republican party. It was changed because "climate change" is less threatening sounding.
But you wouldn't know this because, well, you don't know sh!t. And the truth, the reality, is simply too inconvenient for sheep such as yourself.
Name calling won't make you right. LOL.
No, but the facts do make him right.
Scientists deal in theory's and opinions. On-lookers try to make them into facts.
Jetboy, please educate yourself. Mr. Rockwell, why haven't you responded to this:
I did. But since I actually do my own research and I don't garbage up the forum with copy and paste crap from four year old articles reporting on farm news from Southern Oregon, it took me a few minutes.
--------------------
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?
porter: The one thing you just said, I can believe is, "I just hate".
"Believe" ??? Or "Understand" ???
I threw that in just for you. Arizona is big on hate. Ask Sherrif Joe.
Mr. Rockwell:
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, we know there are still some scientists opposed to the "mainstream" assessment. But it isn't that many in terms of percentages.
It's obvious. Evil, vicious, racist, hate filled, rape mongering, right wing onservatives have kidnapped God and forced him to ruin the Global Warming hoax. And everything was going so well! All together now you Liberals: WHERE'S MY CHECK?"
Darn! Where is Al Gore when you need him?
Where is Al Gore? Making money and enjoying life.
I haven't paid much attention to Al since he stopped throwing pearls before swine. Can't much blame him.
Global Climate change adds more energy to the atmosphere, which causes more extremes on both hot and cold weather.
Why are there so many people on here that act like the dumber you are the better of an American you are, if you don't understand Global Climate Change then don't talk about it. You don't sound like a genius pointing out one freak storm acting like this is enough proof to show the world is getting colder.
You sound like a 5 year old yelling at an educated adult with you version of "evidence" which doesn't prove anything.
Grow up!
I live in Fargo and we just had the warmest winter on record; heck, the day after Christmas was 51 outside. We normally have very cold, harsh winters and I think the worst temperature we have ever seen was about -60. The mild winter was a nice ease into the state as I had moved here in September.
for all the worshippers of the hoax of anthropogenic global warming, I always ask the following question.
what is the "normal" for the climate temperatures? And who will define it?
Is is when there were very small polar ice caps and Greenland was truly green? Or is it during the 5 or more ice ages the earth has gone through?
One of the deniers (AC Robertson) actually posted a link to a reallly hard science guy who answers that question with a thoroughness that you probably can't even imagine. (Evidently, AC didn't bother to read his very own source. Not surprising.)
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Hide under your bed.
Build a bomb shelter.
Fill your basement with nasty tasting, dried food.
Make extra tin foil hats.
LOL.
No ... Enjoy the ride down. That's what I'm doing. Fools like you have screwed it up for all of us.
Your tin-foil hats a little too tight. LOL.
One of the things I amuse myself with is trying to guess what global catastrophe will actually be serious enough to totally destroy the deniers. For anyone with the curiosity to look, the evidence is clear already. But as people like you prove every day, it's gonna take what sociologists call "a significant emotional event" to actually change the culture.
So ... what might it be ... there are so many possibilities to choose from.
* A catastrophic drought? Hmmmm ... we had a pretty good one last year ... but still not enough
* A weather catastrophe ... They're coming along with increasing frequency ...
* Maybe if the Gulf Stream stops flowing and Europe turns into an ice-box as a result. Lots of scientists are predicting it at some point ...
Naaaahhhh ... Here's my favorite guess ...
A heat wave will make the power grid fail across a big part of the SouthWest ... including places like Los Angeles, Dallas and PHOENIX!!! Without air conditioning, at least hundreds of thousands (mainly poor and old people ... who cares about them anyway) will die.
It already happened in Europe in 2003. More than 70,000 died. That got Europe's attention pretty good, but unless we get close to a million, it just won't faze hard core deniers such as yourself.
Mr. Rockwell:
Well, I see that once again you're preaching the gospel; however, you're god is a false god, as you'll see from this source:
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.
I may not be a scientific genius, but I DO know a little about statistics.
Taking climate change out of the equation, and just focusing on numbers ...
If you were monitoring temperature in one location, every month, for 100 years, then your chance of setting a new low temperature next month is one in 100. (It's also one in 100 for a new high temperature)
If you extrapolate that to measuring temperature in 100 locations, then you would basically have a 50/50 chance, each and every month, of seeing a new low average temperature in at least ONE of those locations, and of seeing new high average temperature in at least ONE of those locations.
That is somewhat oversimplified, but let's take it a step further.
There are almost 50,000 cities in the world with airports (where most high and low temperatures are officially measured.) In 200 years of measuring average temperature each month in those cities, in this month of April, there is a 98% chance that one of those cities will record a new low or high average temperature.
Let me repeat that. After recording average temperatures for 200 years, the chance of recording a new low or high average temperature in at least ONE of 50,000 cities in ANY month going forward is 98 percent!
Does this mean that climate change doesn't exist? Of course not! What it does mean is that you should be careful when pointing to one month in any particular location and saying "See, I told you so!"
Yeah ... But we're not looking at just one month.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/
Now it's "we're looking". Wow you are just one important person. LOL.
Do you ever post anything except pot shots?
(I know shooting and pot are favorites in Arizona, but still ...)
Interesting stuff, Porter. I was able to plainly see the difference in the first 5 graphs on that site. The second set of graphs (satellite data not including surface temperature) was not so clear.
But back to the first set of graphs. Over a 30 year time-span, an increase of about half a degree Celsius. Many naysayers would argue that is insignificant. I would not. It is not insignificant if it is a trend that occurs consistently 30 year period after 30 year period.
So, back to my original point: math. One of the cool things about statistics is the ability to look at data in many different ways, and represent that data in many different ways. It is unfortunate when that perspective is defined by one's political views.
I am open-minded when it comes to the possibility that human activity is damaging the planet. I see the polluted oceans and the urban sprawl and the air alerts in major cities. I am of the opinion that concrete jungles (cities) trap heat and cause higher temperatures in many metropolitan areas.
I am not yet convinced, however, that human activity is raising the average temperature of the entire earth. We all know that temperatures vary year after year. The whole point I was trying to make in my original post is that I wish people would stop looking at specific temperatures in specific places during one very small timeframe and then make assumptions about the entire planet. (Both global warming alarmists and deniers do this!)
I applaud the efforts of scientist that attempt to gather data over long periods of time from places all over the earth.
Weather is one of the most complicated systems on our planet. I am always skeptical when someone claims to have figured it all out, and ever more so when they claim to know what to do about it.
Whether global warming is true or not, there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Some things are just out of our control.
You got that right.
But some people need something to worry about. And to fight about.
Yeah ... but in the "shoot-em-up" state, people die.
By the way ... How's your "toughest (and stupidest)" lawman Sherrif Joe doing? I keep wondering when they'll uncover something that will put him in his own jail. (The blind leading the blind ...)
Don't know any "sheriff joe". Our sheriff is Dever. In your hate, I'm sure you can dream up a reason to hate him.
Yes yes, but it was a warm snow!
LOL.
Some friends of mine lived here in Phoenix Az and a couple of months ago they had to relocate for her job( she is a pilot for UPS) to you guessed "Anchorage". Shooo talk about a shock to the system!
Mother Nature is just rearranging her weather pattern...changing it up, shaking it up a bit, adding some excitement. No money to be made here, move on please.
In Juneau, Alaska we've had about dead on average in terms of temperature but about 50% above average in terms of snowfall, about 130 inches or so.
But the real story has been the snowpack at Eaglecrest, our ski area. At base, about a month ago, the snow pack exceeded the previous record and it is still above the previous record even though we are well into spring skiing.
Even though, the ski area plans on closing on schedule at the end of the next weekend, in terms of snow pack, if you are willing to hike, we should be able to ski for at least another month...
For all of the Chicken Littles and other alarmists, I offer the following for your edification:
Good job NRA---keep guns in the hand of anyone and everyone--protect those Secone Amendant Rights---Doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed because every idioit had the RIGHT to own a gun!! You say guns don't kill--OK them how would these innocent people get killed if there were no guns involved---simple--the body count would be minumal!!!
Without guns how many would still be alive from Columbine?? Virginia tech???
GED Teacher:
What's scary is that you're a teacher. The topic is global warming/climate change, etc. Do you want to post anything on topic?
What is your reading comprehension?
GED teacher ... does that mean you got your ged or what? You are an idiot. How about spending your time convincing your liberal friends (NEA, ACLU) to put metal detectors in the schools. Further it is not the NRA. After all it is the rest of us that make up the NRA and WE protect people like you. Bet my bottom dollar you never served your country, and you are the recipient of much social spending. You can't even keep on subject. We are discussing "GLOBAL WARMING"
Good question, GED! I sometimes ask the same question.
But it's not on topic here.
Mt. St. Helens pukes out more CO2 than this whole country, and it isn't even considered active. There are hundred of "active" volcanoes putting mega tons in the air. The glacier in Glacier National Park had receded more than a mile from 1890s to 1938. Where was the "man-made carbon foot print" then? Also this global warming thing IS a natural thing. Anyone that doesn't believe it needs to watch more history channel and less msnbc. Your buddy AL purports this crap as a way to get into your pockets, and JUST because you are democrats MOST of you just AUTOMATICALLY fall for his line of BS. If you are SO CONCERNED about golbal warming, DO YOUR PART and QUIT BREATHING. You are polluting my air.
The LIES that deniers tell!!!
This site specifically shows how this is a denier lie!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
The sky is falling. Crawl under your bed and hold your breath. LOL.
Mr. Rockwell:
Please, go to this site and slander all of the dozens of scientists listed on this site. Perhaps you might want to review the professional reputations of some of the many charlatans who believe (and I mean believe, because one may only believe that which isn't proven to be a fact).
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.
I like Wikipedia! The open review process there generally leads to a more complete and honest answer than you can get anywhere else. That's why the very page you quote is an excellent read to actually understand the controversy. (Again, I wonder if you actually read it. It seems pretty clear that you didn't do any due diligence on your first attempt and it seems you didn't do that on your second one either.) (And ... by the way ... you need to replace the "?" in the URL you posted by a "/" ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
(tch, tch, tch ... amateurs)
Like, for example, the graphic on that VERY SAME PAGE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
Great!!!
The wonderful thing about science is that it's an open community where dissent really is both allowed and encouraged. So, with something as controversial and complex as climate change, it's natural that there will continue to be a small ... very small as the graphic ON THE PAGE YOU SUGGESTED shows ... contingent of doubters.
Your first reference .... the Oregon Institute of Has-Beens and Bitter Old Men ... is far more representative of the kind of residual scientists who refuse, like you fools do, to see the truth.
By the way, ON THE PAGE YOU REFERENCED, there is a link to an excellent book too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
hey porter, the more you post the more people begin to understand that you have an insatiable appetite to prove to everyone how smart you believe you are. But your posts prove a different point, they only further the belief that die hard global warmists are as crazy as clowns. you probably dont realize how silly you sound getting all serious and bent out of shape about climate change.
That's true ... I don't realize how silly I sound.
Do YOU realize how silly YOU sound?
Suck it "global warming" basket cases!
Everyone,
Google or Bing: "scientists who oppose global warming" and you'll receive 11.5 million hits in less than one second. 'Nuff said for the sky-is-falling crowd of true believers.
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.
Releasing billions of tons of carbon that has been stored as hydrocarbons in the earth over millions of years in the short period of time since the industrial revolution has to have an effect. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out, just a minimal amount of intelligence.