Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Posted: **02 Dec 2009 10:58**

trang wrote: Not using plastic bags, not farting, not driving a 10mpG gas sucker, is not gonna make a difference, period. We got plenty of resources, plenty of square mileage available per person, we could handle 3 times what the population is now and mother earth wont bat an eyeball.

I still wouldn't completely agree with this. I still think there are many ways that we are putting a strain on many aspects of our ecosystem. And besides, on a long-enough timeline the theory behind man-made climate change is still valid. It has just gone back to the pre-1995 version, where our influence on sea levels and ice-caps may be as much as 1000 years down the road. In my opinion, it's not enough to say we'll have abandoned the planet by then, or we'll at least have figured out a solution. One of the up-sides (and possibly part of what the conspirators intended) is that now the seed has been planted. There are now thousands of new businesses dedicated to finding and developing alternative, renewable energy sources. If peak-oil isn't enough motivation for such new adaptations, then maybe the now-distant anthropogenic climate crisis is.

trang wrote:I'm not on the bandwagon that bee's go we go either. They perform a function on nature for sure, but if they fall short, nature adapts and will replace it with another method.. it might take more years that I can imagine, but the system would compensate. The other is that bee's are not all that complex and beyond our grasp that we could develop an artificial means, again that might take longer in years than I can count, but its very very possible.

Last I heard, the bees were back on the upswing. I believe it was a Canadian study that said so.

Freakzilla wrote:
Drunken Idaho wrote: FSM save us!

And for the record, the former science of climate change was a lot more complex than "temperature goes up, no more snow!"

But I guess there's no point in bickering about all that anymore...
Many places have experience record low temperatures the last couple of years.

Yeah but- Gahhhhh! Musssttt ressiisst urrge to deffenndddd bulllshittt cclimate sssciennce...

The thing is, they pretty much had us believing that a rise in global temperature also had unique effects such as shorter, more intense winters, along with record low temperatures in certain areas. In addition to this, we also expected to see record droughts and high temperatures in other areas. Australia, for example, was hit pretty hard in that respect, and still is. I'm still pretty sure that anthropogenic climate change (should it ever become a real issue) would actually work like that. Notice the apparently natural shift we're experiencing now. But whenever I had gotten into the science of it, these tumultuous symptoms all seemed to make a lot of sense. Like Thing pointed out, it's hard not to feel like a tool for having put my trust in the reports of the IPCC. But I became environmentally conscious only shortly before the W. administration. Certainly I can't be blamed for sooner believing a large group of scientists, rather than politicians and corporations.

Anyway, back to reading these emails...

Posted: **02 Dec 2009 12:08**

trang wrote: I'm not on the bandwagon that bee's go we go either. They perform a function on nature for sure, but if they fall short, nature adapts and will replace it with another method.. it might take more years that I can imagine, but the system would compensate. The other is that bee's are not all that complex and beyond our grasp that we could develop an artificial means, again that might take longer in years than I can count, but its very very possible.

You vastly underestimate what the bees accomplish and vastly overestimate what we humans can pull off. Sure nature WILL adapt and find another method... in 10, 20, 30 or more thousand years, long long after we're gone.

There is absolutely no way we could develop an artificial method to pollinate almost every plant on the planet. A few of us would survive somewhere with a small hand/machine pollinated crop, and others by living solely off what they can get out of the ocean, but civilization as we know it is over, and the vast majority of the other land animals and planets would die off very quickly.

No bees are not very complicated, but they have vast numbers and perform a very specific task. We can't just build tiny robots and program them to know the difference between a flower and a fancy leaf, and then let them loose. We can't just rain pollin of every kind over every acre of the planet.

I'm not talking out of my ass here, bees perform the single most important function to life on land, and it is not something that we humans could replicate in any way on a large scale. There are no other animals even close to occupying that niche in nature, and waiting for random assed evolution to turn them up an for flowering plants to re-evolve, well, that'll be a while.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009 10:59**

Winter Storm Watch in Houston, TX: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/weather ... uston-area" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **04 Dec 2009 12:22**

Yep... If this was just a week ago, you'd simply be supporting the same popular climate change theory that I supported at that time. I could have used that as an example of the extreme weather we'd continue to see in random areas, due to shifts in air currents because of the rise in global temperature caused by man-made emissions.

But that was then, and things have changed. So I'm kind of struggling to see the relevance...

Unless you think there's a genuine case to be made for Global Cooling.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009 12:53**

Drunken Idaho wrote:Yep... If this was just a week ago, you'd simply be supporting the same popular climate change theory that I supported at that time. I could have used that as an example of the extreme weather we'd continue to see in random areas, due to shifts in air currents because of the rise in global temperature caused by man-made emissions.

But that was then, and things have changed. So I'm kind of struggling to see the relevance...

Unless you think there's a genuine case to be made for Global Cooling.

I've been saying that there has been a cooling trend for the last couple of years, and not random in random areas, all over. Personally, I haven't noticed any warming trend in my area. If anything it has gotten cooler.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009 13:05**

Freakzilla wrote:
Drunken Idaho wrote:Yep... If this was just a week ago, you'd simply be supporting the same popular climate change theory that I supported at that time. I could have used that as an example of the extreme weather we'd continue to see in random areas, due to shifts in air currents because of the rise in global temperature caused by man-made emissions.

But that was then, and things have changed. So I'm kind of struggling to see the relevance...

Unless you think there's a genuine case to be made for Global Cooling.
I've been saying that there has been a cooling trend for the last couple of years, and not random in random areas, all over. Personally, I haven't noticed any warming trend in my area. If anything it has gotten cooler.

Yes, but that actually lines up with what was being predicted with global warming. Stuff like this is evidence FOR global warming, not against it. And it's not all over, many parts of the world have been experiencing droughts and warming as predicted.

Of course, we now "know" that the data was exaggerated.

Posted: **07 Dec 2009 14:11**

As far as I can tell, there is nothing damning in the email correspondence in regards to the science. The issue of professionalism and ethics are another issue. I am sure that if I were one of the scientists, I would like to beat up those Exxon funded knuckleheads as well. And while not illegal (indeed dissenting scientists participate just as often), peer review blocking of dissenting view points is at best unethical.

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 01:18**

"The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health... (more)"

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 05:19**

A Thing of Eternity wrote:
trang wrote: I'm not on the bandwagon that bee's go we go either. They perform a function on nature for sure, but if they fall short, nature adapts and will replace it with another method.. it might take more years that I can imagine, but the system would compensate. The other is that bee's are not all that complex and beyond our grasp that we could develop an artificial means, again that might take longer in years than I can count, but its very very possible.
You vastly underestimate what the bees accomplish and vastly overestimate what we humans can pull off. Sure nature WILL adapt and find another method... in 10, 20, 30 or more thousand years, long long after we're gone.

There is absolutely no way we could develop an artificial method to pollinate almost every plant on the planet. A few of us would survive somewhere with a small hand/machine pollinated crop, and others by living solely off what they can get out of the ocean, but civilization as we know it is over, and the vast majority of the other land animals and planets would die off very quickly.

No bees are not very complicated, but they have vast numbers and perform a very specific task. We can't just build tiny robots and program them to know the difference between a flower and a fancy leaf, and then let them loose. We can't just rain pollin of every kind over every acre of the planet.

I'm not talking out of my ass here, bees perform the single most important function to life on land, and it is not something that we humans could replicate in any way on a large scale. There are no other animals even close to occupying that niche in nature, and waiting for random assed evolution to turn them up an for flowering plants to re-evolve, well, that'll be a while.

Im not underestimating anything, just dont agree with the theory that if the bee's die out we die. I think that folks underestimate what humans are capable of. Think about this... in just over one century we have gone from the first airplane flight...to jetting around the world in 24 hours, putting men on the moon, spacecraft out of our own solar system, cracking the genetic code.. etc which is some serious fucking advancement in that wee bit of time.

The amount of technological jumps we have made in just over 100 years as a race, is mind boggling and honestly staggering. If you could remove, money, corruption, and greed, we might be 10 fold more advance than we are. This is a double edged sword .. with knowledge comes the known, but also the greater danger... the unknown.

This science related to global warming is a perfect example of what we don't know, but have been told and swallowed.

the predictions of doom, death, mayhem, anarchy and our demise have been tumbling around the last century, and none of them have come to fruit. I fully expect that trend to continue... we will march forward, mother nature will continue to function, the bee's will continue to play their roll, and the sun will shine tomorrow and keep us warm and happy.

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 11:59**

trang wrote:Im not underestimating anything, just dont agree with the theory that if the bee's die out we die. I think that folks underestimate what humans are capable of. Think about this... in just over one century we have gone from the first airplane flight...to jetting around the world in 24 hours, putting men on the moon, spacecraft out of our own solar system, cracking the genetic code.. etc which is some serious fucking advancement in that wee bit of time.

I'm not sure if those are the best examples. Didn't we put men on the moon only once, and it was a very dangerous and expensive operation? I also don't believe we've put "spacecraft" outside out own solar system yet, though satellites and other modules have. And the genetic code isn't anywhere near being "cracked".

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 14:06**

You really think that we only put men on the moon once? Really? As far as I know we did it six times.

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 14:13**

on the lighter side, does shaving your nuts accelerate global warming?

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 14:15**

Just for reference, I'm not a doomsayer by any means, I don't think the bees will die out. And if they were very close to extinction, we would work our asses of bioengineering new bees (that would be the only reasonable replacement for bees, is more bees).

I was just pointing out that we can still do absolutely mindboggling damage to this planet and our selves, regardless of whether global warming is a farce.

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 14:44**

Omphalos wrote:You really think that we only put men on the moon once? Really? As far as I know we did it six times.

No, I don't "think" that. Which is why it was a question. As far as I know, there have been only over 60 missions (a lot, yes) to the moon, but those all ended in mid-'70, so I'd count them all as being part of the same general project and not really different events. Bush talking about getting us there again by 2020 really just shows how far behind we are as far as space-exploration, if we haven't done it for nearly 40 years, and won't again for another 11.

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 16:07**

Redstar wrote:Didn't we put men on the moon only once

That came off as a rhetorical question, young man. Avoid emphasis next time and you may be understood better. Or better yet, think and do some research before you open you mouth.

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 17:28**

Just thought this might be appropriate: Michael Crichton on Consensus Science

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 17:47**

Guys. I reiterate:

The bees are fine. There were more around than were expected this past year, or something like that. A Canadian study pointed this out.

But as for the moon, I think the basic knowledge that we've been there more than once should be required for admission into any sci-fi related forum.

But it is true, what Trang says, that our intellect and ingenuity will protect us from many of the threats we face and aid us in solving problems. After some time to think much of this climategate stuff over, I can say that those who were involved in oversimplifying climate change projections probably achieved what they intended, and it probably isn't a bad thing. Not to say it wasn't wrong and scientifically amoral. They've managed to plant that seed in us that knows that Anthropogenic Climate Change is something to be taken seriously. They've basically pulled a Leto II. Seriously, it's like tough love on a worldwide basis, all in the name of ensuring that the Path of humanity continues. They showed us almost two decades of doom-and-gloom, no-future-for-your-children projections just to show us how bad it may very well be if inaction persists. Then they Scattered the seeds of living "green," off-setting carbon emissions, biofuels, solar, wind, so that they can each have time to flourish (in industry, politics, and mind) by the time we may have to depend on them. There is now apparently no real consensus on when that may be. Sure, some facts were ignored or altered in order to form an exaggeration of the truth, but hey, I guess you gotta' squash a lot of Duncan Idahos to get your point across.

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 17:56**

Drunken Idaho wrote:Guys. I reiterate:

The bees are fine. There were more around than were expected this past year, or something like that. A Canadian study pointed this out.

But as for the moon, I think the basic knowledge that we've been there more than once should be required for admission into any sci-fi related forum.

But it is true, what Trang says, that our intellect and ingenuity will protect us from many of the threats we face and aid us in solving problems. After some time to think much of this climategate stuff over, I can say that those who were involved in oversimplifying climate change projections probably achieved what they intended, and it probably isn't a bad thing. Not to say it wasn't wrong and scientifically amoral. They've managed to plant that seed in us that knows that Anthropogenic Climate Change is something to be taken seriously. They've basically pulled a Leto II. Seriously, it's like tough love on a worldwide basis, all in the name of ensuring that the Path of humanity continues. They showed us almost two decades of doom-and-gloom, no-future-for-your-children projections just to show us how bad it may very well be if inaction persists. Then they Scattered the seeds of living "green," off-setting carbon emissions, biofuels, solar, wind, so that they can each have time to flourish (in industry, politics, and mind) by the time we may have to depend on them. There is now apparently no real consensus on when that may be. Sure, some facts were ignored or altered in order to form an exaggeration of the truth, but hey, I guess you gotta' squash a lot of Duncan Idahos to get your point across.

yup like that

Posted: **08 Dec 2009 20:33**

Space and men on the moon were not my sole focus, just the opposite end example from Wilbur and Orville. below is some reference material for those curious.

http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/ThePioneers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good to hear the bee's are buzzing!! Viva La Bee's!!

End of line..

Posted: **09 Dec 2009 18:12**

From:

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opini ... ef=opinion

December 9, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Going Cheney on Climate
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”

Soon after Suskind’s book came out, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who then was at the University of Chicago, pointed out that Mr. Cheney seemed to be endorsing the same “precautionary principle” that also animated environmentalists. Sunstein wrote in his blog: “According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

Of course, Mr. Cheney would never accept that analogy. Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole “climategate” controversy as well.

“Climategate” was triggered on Nov. 17 when an unidentified person hacked into the e-mails and data files of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading climate science centers in the world — and then posted them on the Internet. In a few instances, they revealed some leading climatologists seemingly massaging data to show more global warming and excluding contradictory research.

Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.

That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.

As this paper just reported: “Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record.”

This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Posted: **09 Dec 2009 18:33**

Good article.

Posted: **05 Jan 2010 10:48**

Atlanta Forcast:

Today: Sunny, cold. Winds West 10-15 mph with gusts to 25 mph. Wind chills in the single digits. Highs near freezing.

Tomorrow: Mostly sunny. Increasing clouds late in the afternoon. Winds NW 5-10 mph. Lows in the teens, highs in the upper 30s.

Thursday: 40% chance of snow. 1/2 inch possible in the metro area, 1-2 inches north metro into the mountains. Rain/snow mix to a cold rain on the south side. Winds West 5-10 mph, gusts to 20 mph. Lows in the low 20s; highs in the mid 30s.

For reference, the average high temperature for this time of year is 50. Average low is 29. Record High: 72 (1950), Record Low: 3 (1984).

Say it with me now cooooling treeeeend.

Posted: **05 Jan 2010 11:21**

Freeze warnings throughout nation! Temperature reaches record low!

Its freezing out there isn’t it? Well for the Americans it is. Some places have reached record low temperatures and freeze warning had been issued. People are requested to stay at home unless its absolutely necessary.

“We’re seeing freeze warnings not just into Central Florida, but down into the Everglades,” CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano said. CNN meteorologist Sean Morris said “More arctic air will move in this week,” “It will get progressively colder in the Southeast.” “Some locations could see temperatures 30 to 40 degrees below normal” across parts of the Plains, upper Midwest and Ohio River Valley on Thursday, Morris said. By Friday morning, afternoon highs will struggle to make it above zero, he said. “The main event will come whenever the reinforcing cold air moves in,” Morris said.

Temperatures are below freezing point in South. Parts of South Carolina got down to 14 on Sunday, breaking the record low of 18 set in 1979. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 7 below freezing point Monday morning. Chicago, Illinois, it was 11, with a wind chill of 3 below zero.

Extremely low temperatures are causing harm to crops. Improper protections are leading people into various diseases. Hard freeze warning are all over the Florida Peninsula and the Southeast. Exposure to such extreme temperature can cause death.

Posted: **05 Jan 2010 11:28**

http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Record Lows - 2009

Record Low Temperatures in the United States

Jan 1 Coldest weather in decades for North Carolina - The coldest stretch of weather in years - if not decades - could be heading for North Carolina. With highs in the 30s and lows in the teens, forecasters say the cold snap could last up to two weeks.
http://www2.wnct.com/nct/news/local/art ... _nc/91554/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks to Steven Woodcock for this link

Dec 30 Hard Freeze for North Florida this weekend - Look out orange growers! - Sat / Sun will be below freezing in some areas in Florida, possibly Mon / Tue. Extensive U.S. snow cover into the Southeast USA for much of the next 2 weeks. Some days could struggle to get much above the freezing level with night lows in the teens to 25. (Search on different towns at http://www.wunderground.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

http://www.examiner.com/x-4648-Atlanta- ... h-attitude" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dec 29 First ten days of January to be "well below normal"
"We believe that most of the central and eastern part of the country will have temperatures well below normal for at least the first 10 days of January," says AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist John Kocet.

http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.a ... &article=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks to Tom Meyer for this link

Dec 26 191 New snowfall records - Many date back 100+ years.
Some of the most notable:

Pipestone, MN - shattered 132-year-old record by 6 inches.
Bemidji, MN - shattered 113-year-old record by 9.4 inches.
Grand Forks, ND - shattered 116-year-old record by 7.2 inches.
Lead, SD - shattered 100-year-old record by 11.2 inches.
Lemmon, SD - shattered 101-year-old record by 14 inches.
Marion, SD - shattered 108-year-old record by 12.4 inches (over a foot).
Murdo, SD - shattered 102-year-old record by 10 inches
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/recor ... th=12&day=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 26&year=2009&sts%5B%5D=US&submitted=Get+Records
Thanks to Kenneth Lund for this link

Dec 26 Oklahoma digs out after record snowfall - The 14.1 inches of snow Thursday at Will Rogers World Airport set daily and event records, said National Weather Service meteorologist Bruce Thoren. Northwest Oklahoma City reported about 11 inches, Yukon reported 10 inches, about 9 inches in Norman, and 6 to 8 inches in Tulsa.

For a while,, all interstate highways in the Oklahoma City area were closed with unknown numbers of motorists stranded. Military vehicles were dispatched to rescue them. Even a couple of state troopers were stranded.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-digs-out-tha ... nes_widget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks to Stew Stewart for this link

Dec 26 South Dakota - Snowfall up to 40 inches (1 meter) - Drifts up to 12 feet (4 meters) deep
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE RAPID CITY SD

26 DEC 09 - SNOW ACCUMULATIONS

8.0 INCH MEADE SD DRIFTS UP TO 10 FEET DEEP.

5.0 INCH CAMPBELL WY

20.0 INCH SHANNON SD DRIFTS 6 TO 8 FEET.

26.0 INCH LAWRENCE SD

24.0 INCH CROOK WY

6.0 INCH PENNINGTON SD

10.0 INCH MEADE SD DRIFTS UP TO 12 FEET HIGH.

5.4 INCH PENNINGTON SD

40.0 INCH LAWRENCE SD

7.0 INCH BUTTE SD

17.0 INCH TODD SD

9.0 INCH BENNETT SD DRIFTS UP TO 12 FEET HIGH.

THIS TABLE MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE FINAL STORM TOTALS.

INCHES
------

40.00 LEAD SD

26.00 DOWNTOWN SPEARFISH SD

24.00 SUNDANCE WY

20.00 PORCUPINE SD DRIFTS 6 TO 8 FEET.

17.00 MISSION SD

11.00 DOWNTOWN STURGIS SD

10.00 BOX ELDER SD DRIFTS UP TO 12 FEET HIGH.

9.00 MARTIN SD DRIFTS UP TO 12 FEET HIGH.

8.00 ELM SPRINGS SD DRIFTS UP TO 10 FEET DEEP.

7.00 HOOVER SD

6.00 DOWNTOWN RAPID CITY SD

5.40 HILL CITY SD

5.00 DOWNTOWN GILLETTE WY

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cm ... 7&source=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks to Kenneth Lund for this link

7 inches of snow in Texas, drifts to 4 feet high - 26 Dec 09 - The area from the central South Plains to the far southeast Texas Panhandle received the most snowfall, with drifts of up to 4 feet. Snowfall at Littlefield and Shallowater measured 7 inches.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lub/?n=events-2 ... 91223_snow" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks to Kenneth Lund for this link

Dec 25 Two feet of snow - Minot, ND

Location
Snowfall (in)

Minot
24.0

Marton
19.0

Harvey
14.0

Bismarck
13.6

Richardton
13.5

Flasher
13.0

Heart Butte Dam
12.0

Grassy Butte
11.2

New Salem
11.0

Ashley
10.8

Hazelton
10.3

Halliday
9.0

Williston
5.9

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cm ... 5&source=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks to Kenneth Lund for this link

Dec 25 246 snowfall records broken - many over 100 years old !!
plus 13 tied, for a total of 259
Lead, SD, shattered 100-year-old record by almost 20 inches
Sisseton, SD shattered 109-year-old record by 11.9 inches.
Lamoni, IA shattered 112-year-old record by 8 inches.
Stanberry, MO shattered 116-year-old record by 7.4 inches.
Vinita, OK shattered 114-year-old record by 9.3 inches.
Shawnee, OK shattered 108-year-old record by 6.5 inches.
Kennebec, SD shattered 116-year-old record by 6 inches.
Pollock, SD shattered 101-year-old record by 10 inches.
Huron, SD shattered 128-year-old record by 6.5 inches.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/recor ... th=12&day=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 25&year=2009&sts%5B%5D=US&submitted=Get+Records

Thanks to Kenneth Lund for this link

It goes on and on and on...

Posted: **05 Jan 2010 18:26**

There's exteme weather warnings for most of the UK at the moment, we're supposed to get a huge dump of snow overnight in London. It's been snowing really heavily in Scotland and the North, but no one really cares about that.

Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming

Re: Global Warming