Snow forecast for ALL 50 states: Records continue to tumble as the country experiences coldest month

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I don't. I reloaded in Stockton and was trying to get over the pass into Nevada heading to Utah. Wound up going way out of route to Barstow and up 15.

I am currently in northern California at the moment and, yes, it did in fact snow a wee bit.
Definitely not unusual to snow at times in the nearby mountains where I'm at, however, the snow reached city level which is the extraordinary thing.

~Sovereign

a reply to: Zaphod58

Seems Stockton is 333 miles north of me; I used to live in San fran, never saw snow but it did get damn cold.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Shoot it snowed down here in riverside county just a couple months back, thing they got like 4-6 inches.

a reply to: SubTruth

So it is only progressives cashing in on it?

No one cashes in on the denial of it?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Soooo.....

How much snow are the predicting for Hawaii ?

Florida?

I can tell you that NONE is predicted for my state.

Well if you live in Florida?

Forget red and blue -- color America white. There was snow on the ground in 49 states Friday. Hawaii was the holdout. It was the United States of Snow, thanks to an unusual combination of weather patterns that dusted the U.S., including the skyscrapers of Dallas, the peach trees of Atlanta and the Florida Panhandle, where hurricanes are more common than snowflakes.

More than two-thirds of the nation's land mass had snow on the ground when the day dawned, and then it snowed ever so slightly in Florida to make it 49 states out of 50.

m.nydailynews.com...=1

This article is also from February 12

Wow if true.

I's 9 to 11 degrees Celsius out here. Netherlands, Europe

originally posted by: Sinter Klaas
Wow if true.

I's 9 to 11 degrees Celsius out here. Netherlands, Europe

Is that hot or cold? & what's...Celsius??? Never heard that word here in Murica.

a reply to: liejunkie01

When I was young in Northern Montana the temperature hit -88 degrees F one year without the windchill. The people in New York simply don't have any idea what cold is! Just last year in Southern Montana the temp hit -47 degrees F! I wonder what the New Yorkers would say about the temps that Montana has if they had them? LOL!!!!

Gee, I wish it would warm up to an average of twenty degrees around here in February. That would be a heatwave around here. A twenty degree average for the month is way above average here.

What are they complaining about?

a reply to: boymonkey74

Let me guess another denier despite 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is happening.

i'm sorry that has been proven to be false. here are a couple of links.
first here are 7 scientist in a report that say their studies and papers were falsely distorted to say thing that they didn't in Cook's paper.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

a couple of the responses

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it". Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise" Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Shaviv:
"Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C). I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

there are seven right here 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them that say there data and papers were not a endorsement for global warming/ climate change, and that cook's team misrepresented the data.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t[/color].
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

the world maybe warming, but man is not the main reason.





ETA: i meant to add that the paper cook published was just on papers written, there are many other scientists that have not written papers that also say that the majority of global warming/ climate change is a natural occurrence that the earth goes through.

a reply to: Sinter Klaas

A couple weeks ago I was going back and forth where the high temps were single digit and windchill was -20.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: liejunkie01

Because science changes and scientists learn about the climate and views change.
It is happening and we have helped it, you may want to stick your head in the sand and ignore it but it will effect everyone in the coming years.
Deniers are the problem.
Cheers for doing nothing love from the future generations.

Way to be open-minded. They don't agree with me so they are a problem. That kind of thinking usually precedes the elimination of the people that don't agree with the cult of believers that are in the majority.

I don't know everything. I respect the opinion of everyone except for those that are know-it-all jerks that like to tell others how stupid they are to have their own opinion.

a reply to: Metallicus

Wow so I'm going to exterminate everyone who disagrees with me?.
No need we are ficked anyhow.
I look at the science and make up my own mind plus the fact my best mate came back from taking ice cores last year and he has decided not to have kids due to the evidence he has seen.
Education is the key here.
But some don't want to change their comfortable life so will refuse climate change is even happening.
Just like evolution some just ignore the data.

a reply to: boymonkey74
Thats his reason for not having kids?!? I can think of at least 50 more reasons, & only half of them are conspiracy related

a reply to: boymonkey74

Education is the key here.

Let me fix that for you.

Non biased education is they key here.

Especially the education where numbers are altered and skewed to get the outcome that is desired.

a reply to: liejunkie01

I thnk the phrase "Non Conditioned" education is more apt. Bias is merely the favored outcome of long term conditioning.

Also, good luck with that, lol
Long term conditioning won, we lost.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I believe Mt. Baldy had some snow the other day after the storm.

No thanks. There's already two feet of the stuff out there right now. I'm not looking forward to the mess when it melts.

[__OO__]



Global warming started in 1934 !!!