Forecasts call for another 20 inches of snow in Washington DC with snow spreading to NYC this time.
Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) — Storm systems barreling across the country may bring as much as 20 inches (50 centimeters) of new snow to Washington and Baltimore starting late tomorrow, while New York may receive a foot, forecasters said.
With the Washington-Baltimore area still digging out from a weekend storm that left record snowfalls in some areas, the latest blast of winter “is going to be accompanied by heavy winds, which will make it feel worse, and across the Northeast that wind is going to last through the weekend,” said Tom Kines, a meteorologist with AccuWeather Inc.
A winter storm watch was posted today by the National Weather Service for New York, Long Island, southern Connecticut, Rhode Island and southern Massachusetts. A winter storm warning was posted for Washington starting at noon tomorrow, and 10 to 20 more inches may fall, the agency said.
more here
LOL! The Democrats are closing down government for the rest of this week because of the snow and next week is a scheduled vacation. I can’t wait until they come back from vacation demanding that “we act now” to save humanity from global warming, The “D” in DC stands for “disarray.” The politicians are in such a mess, they are fleeing each other. I love it. Some time soon, the American public will wake up and realize that no one is in charge anymore and we are free again. The self-appointed babysitters have fled the house and are hiding under the front porch. Now all we have to do is call the exterminators.
“BarryW (11:34:03) :
Washington only had officially “only” 17.8 inches. The Washington Post article tries to explain why, while everybody else in the area got much more:”
I flew out of Dulles on Monday morning, a connecting flight from Boston, and while I had seen reports that Dulles had 30 inches, from my observation it appeared closer to 1 1/2 ft with drifts perhaps being as much as 2 1/2 ft.
Sometimes airport s and towns report higher than actual numbers to appear more deserving of money when it comes time for budgets or federal/state aid, or just to provide a better excuse for the delay in removing the snow from roads/runways.
Meanwhile in Taipei it is a balmy 83 deg F, pretty warm for February. But thats just weather (it was darn cold in December/Jaunuary), and warm is certainly better than cold, jet lagged or not.
Wakefield Tolbert (17:06:29) :
> The polar ice cap is vanishing at a rate far faster than the worst IPCC predictions.
Vanishing seems to be a strong word, especially since the summer lows for the last couple of years are going up from the record (30 year) low in 2007.
> Low lying island nations such as Tuvalu are already being forced to begin relocating due to rising sea levels.
How much of that nation has been evacuated so far? Maldives too.
> An overwhelming majority of scientists globally concur on the basic facts
Sure, like CO2 is increasing, the planet has warmed since the last ice
age, 1998 sure featured a strong El Nino. Those seem pretty basic, did
you have some in mind (or your physicist acquaintance)?
Ric Werme (21:51:36)
Basic? Perhaps on those notes. Sure. But what about his other claims, more recent, to the effect of, say…. TEN YEARS of emails combed over, only to find and snag out a couple of supposedly damning nits from the strands. And even here, we’re given the defense of “we scientists are just human too.”
NO evidence of nefarious Soros money or global conspiracy. Human failings on the emotional front at most, so they tell me. But nothing really damning:
The so-called ‘climategate’ is climate change denial’s last gasp. Hackers stole ten years worth of emails, and they were scoured for anything that might appear damning, finding only two that have been endlessly paraphrased since. The term ‘trick’ is commonly used in science journals as an accepted clever methodology rather than an intent to deceive, and the study mentioned in the email that includes the word ‘trick’ plays no part in official IPCC findings. The ‘can’t explain the decline’ email refers to a study of tree ring formation, and rather than being a secret, the scientist who wrote the email also wrote a public article about his inability to explain his findings.
(emphasis mine)
As to the more recent supposed IPCC “GlacierGate” that has everyone in an donnybrook/uproar (over supposed lifting of material from students and magazine articles as the alleged “only” or “chief” source material) there was a TYPO–and nothing more–about 2035 being the proximate date of Himalayan glacier meltdown rather than the INTENDED date of 2350. The authors of the IPCC report in this regard have admitted the error and did so before the blogosphere got wind of it, AND have reminded people that a slower melt of the world’s glaciers is a melt nontheless, with serious ramifications for those societies and cultures that presently depend on water from said sources.
PS to Ric–good snark on the DMHO link from part of your site. Funny stuff.
I’m off to the haystack with a cold glass of that….
PS–to Ric.
Just toured your site (albeit very briefly)
Was suprised, in that generally most of the “Darwin Fish” types who’d place that little funny leg-sprouter on the car are safely Leftist in orientation in addition to being also the types that have about 100 other stickers, and make mocking noises about religion and so on in other similar missives. Usually the Leftist goes hand-in-hand with Climate Change Warning advocacy.
Exceptions proving the rule?
E.M.Smith (19:13:49) :
Great story! I especially liked the part about buying coffee wearing the wet-suit long-underwear. Thanks!
Tom in Florida (04:58:54) :
http://newsflavor.com/alternative/the-georgia-drought-is-over/
Lol. It is snowing in Buffalo again
Mom about 100 miles East of DC reports complete white-out conditions, she gave up on the driveway. They got some rain on top of the two feet of snow which made a nice crust on it and will cause it to stay longer as the crust slows melting and prevents the snow under it from blowing around. She reports another 4 to 6 inches of new snow on top of that crust.
And it looks like the storm has stalled and is simply sitting there rotating with little overall movement over the past couple of hours.
Here’s an exchange I had with a couple of commenters here that should make it clear that it wasn’t a typo:
Still snowing here in western PA.
Ric Werme (21:51:36)
I do indeed have some more from this person:
(Responding to someone who posted that Exxon Mobile is outspent by an alleged ratio of 1000-1 by government on the issue of Climate Change/AGW research, and then adding more….)
As for your chart purportedly showing government vastly outspending EM on climate change research (It never indicates where joannenova.com obtained those statistics, or how they were compiled, but I’ll let that pass) , EM still gives large amounts of money to think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation and countless others that publish studies by climate skeptics. Such money would not be included in the joannenova.com tally.
Not only that, but EM also influences public policy in other ways, such as campaign donations and lobbying. It isn’t surprising that you hear Republicans like James Inhofe and Sarah Palin, but of whom receive significant largesse from the oil industry, claiming that climate change is bunk. Such politicians have significant influence on public debate, and help at least reinforce the public perception that climate change isn’t “settled science.”
Aside from that, why do you assume that all of the climate change research comes from the government? The vast majority of the influential literature comes from scientists employed by universities, public and private, and who publish their work in scientific journals. A few of these scientists may hold positions in bodies like the IPCC, but most don’t.
The vast majority of the serious scientific literature argues that human beings are responsible for climate change. That isn’t really a matter of debate.
What’s more, scientists have known since the nineteenth century that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. We know that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than ever, and that this amount is growing.
The consequences of climate change are real, too. If you visit western Canada or the US, you will see huge swaths of forest that are dying from pine beetle infestations, which are no longer killed off during the winters, which have become increasingly mild.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0805/full/clim…
Whole lakes have disappeared in Africa, which has caused widespread famine and disease there. Viruses like west nile and malaria are expanding their range and moving farther from the equator.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/0…
Given these facts alone, none of which “climategate” disproves, the responsible thing for us to do is seek ways to limit carbon emissions.
Wakefield,
A few rebuttal points:
The climate peer review system has been thoroughly corrupted by a rent-seeking clique of self-serving connivers. There is no doubt about this, and there is no need for me to cite what I and others have cited endlessly on this site. The emails that are simply hand-waved away by your MacClean’s commentators were much more serious than they think.
Those leaked emails [along with the Harry_read_me file] singlehandedly caused the failure of Cop15, and they are eating away like acid at the CO2=CAGW hypothesis.
How can they not be? They freely admitted that they simply fabricated entire data sets; they made them up. The credulous fools who downplay that scientific misconduct are badly misjudging the situation.
The emails also disclose that ‘hide the decline’ meant that they hid data that would have shown cooling rather than their invented warming. And to this day, no one has denied the validity or provenance of the emails. They can’t; they don’t know what else is out there, and too many people involved have already attested that the emails are genuine.
Next, there is no verifiable, empirical evidence showing that human activity is responsible for climate change. None. I say again: N-O-N-E. Human activity may be responsible for a slight change in global temperature. But that is still an unproven hypothesis. To post, as you did, that The vast majority of the serious scientific literature argues that human beings are responsible for climate change. That isn’t really a matter of debate is simply an opinion of facts that are not in evidence.
Show us empirical [real world] evidence that humans are responsible for climate change. You will have been the first to be able to do so. Even the idea that humans can cause global climate change is ridiculous, and there exists zero evidence for that assertion.
Finally, the current red-faced, spittle flecked arm-waving by the lunatic CO2=CAGW contingent sounds remarkably identical to past prophets of doom: click1, click2
The natural, constantly changing variability of the planet’s climate always brings out prophets of doom. This time is no different. So get a grip, and look at the situation from the perspective of natural variability: today’s climate is completely ordinary. It is well within its historical parameters. Nothing unusual is happening. In fact, the climate is currently very benign.
The only ones who are benefitting from climate alarmism are the prophets of doom, who have no real evidence to support their proselytizing.
But as long as they can scare unthinking people into believing that a harmless, beneficial trace gas such as CO2 is gonna get us all, they don’t need scientific evidence. All they need are gullible people. Don’t be their victim. You will only regret it later.
Well, Smokey, those are some interesting points, to be sure. Agreed.
And the hungry beetles no longer being nipped by cold Rocky Mountain air?
The Capital Weather Gang:
“2009-2010 winter thus far puts D.C. above the previous high mark of 54.4″ set way back in 1898-1899. Baltimore has also broken its all-time record with this event”.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/?hpid=topnews
Wakefield Tolbert (15:05:38),
This could get endless. If you won’t think for yourself, there isn’t much hope.
So I’ll wind this up by pointing out that a 0.7° increase in global temperature over more than a century didn’t cause a pine beetle infestation in one small corner of the globe. That is a classic argumentum ad ignorantium; the fallacy of assigning a cause simply because the writer couldn’t think of another reason [actually, they could easily think of other reasons. But those reasons aren’t as likely to bring in new grants].
It’s the same mindset that assigns all global warming to a tiny trace gas because they can’t think of other causes.
Apparently most CO2=CAGW believers have never heard of Occam’s Razor: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Adding an unnecessary entity like CO2 to an explanation of climate variability makes the situation more complicated than necessary, and so eventually you end up with rent-seeking grant hogs trying to explain a local beetle infestation — as if no beetle infestations had ever occurred prior to the advent of SUVs. See how silly it all sounds when you don’t buy into the AGW claptrap?
Come on, Wakefield, you’re smarter than that… I sincerely hope.
@Wakefield: Here’s what one poster here said a couple of months ago re pine beetles, (I’ll respond to your other points in time):
Smokey and Roger, thanks for the input.
I was not trying to make an endless set of posts out of this. Just asking questions. “Smarter than that” does not indicate I’d know all the little factoids floating around out there about the claims of AGW. (But thanks for the vote of confidence.)
RealClimate has smart people to, as does ScienceBlogs.
I freely admit to being neither a climatologist or computer-modeler or anywhere near such. I posted what I did from the others who claimed to have some kind of inside scoop exactly to see what this equally smart crowd of folks hangin’ around WUWT had to say about matters, as I’m new to this site.
And the “smart” comment is NOT meant to be sarcastic.
I do appreciate your input.
It’s true that the error was dug out by Cogley, an IPCC accomplice, and by Fred Pearce, a red-hot warmist journalist who wrote for New Scientist, rather than by a blogger. However, saying the IPCC acted before the blogosphere put them up to it incorrectly hints that the IPCC would have taken action if it hadn’t feared that Pearce or Cogley would go public, perhaps via the bloggers, if a correction wasn’t made. The IPCC’s record prior to that point was one of denial and coverup as long as it thought it could get away with it:
1. Haisnain, the WWF, and I presume other IPCCers in attendance, ignored glacier expert Gwyn Rees’s 2004 UK-government-funded debunking rapid-melting claims and his speech warning that Haisnan’s 2035 date was ridiculous. He forced New Scientist to publish a retraction in 2004 after it had published Haisnan’s claim that Rees’s study was alarmist about the melting rate, so this was widely known:
2. Raised-eyebrow comments during the review process from Japan and others about the source etc. of 2035 were dealt with perfunctorily. Only a citation of the WWF article was added.
3. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s e-mail to the IPCC’s technical support team prior to publication about 2035 was ignored.
Here’s the IPCC’s excuse for how it dropped the ball:
4. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s letter to Asia group head Dr. Lal was ignored. (Lal said in response that he never got it. A “likely story,” IMO.)
5. In early November ChooChoo scornfully dismissed the correction in the report issued by VK Raina of India’s Geological Survey, calling it voodoo science. Here’s WUWT’s thread on the matter then:
6. Later in November ChooChoo was informed about the error by Pavlia Bagla but he took no action. This is in line with the IPCC’s hear-no-evil precedents described above. Here’s a story by Andrew Bolt summarizing the matter:
PS: Don’t forget that the IPCC not only printed the wrong date, but backed it up by rating the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing as “very high”—i.e., more than 90 per cent.
Further, although all the experts except Kaser failed to try to get this corrected afterwards (too good a story to spoil?), this was not something that others overlooked:
Incidentally, the passage above continues with some interesting background material:
PPS: Here is a piece of a letter to the London Times. It contradicts Wakefield’s proxy claim that the IPCC made a good-faith error:
Here’s another comment, on dot.earth, that indicates the great usefulness this 2035 “error” had for the alarmist cause:
And here’s a WUWT comment that’s another indication that it was “no accident” that the IPCC made the 2035 “error”:
PPPS: Here’s more background info., from an earlier WUWTer:
More criticism of the good-faith-error defense:
Interesting liks, all.
I plan to especially save the one from Roger Pielke Jr.