Monday, January 10, 2011

Coldest January Since 1985

For people who hate cold weather, the forecast for the next couple of weeks  is bad news. Waves of frigid air invading the U.S. will become progressively colder and more widespread, with the worst coming in the third week of January.
Many people in the East will get a slight taste of the colder air this weekend before more substantial cold takes hold from coast to coast next week.
This upcoming cold weather pattern could yield snow or ice in places that don't often get it.Seattle, Wash., Portland, Ore., Dallas, Texas, Memphis, Tenn., and Charlotte, N.C., are all in the running for possible snow or ice next week.
How widespread the cold air is across the U.S. through mid- to late month could make this thecoldest January for the nation as a whole since 1985, according to AccuWeather.com Chief Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi.
So what happened to global warming? hee....

30 comments:

jez said...

is it here?

MK said...

Enjoy the warmth Leticia. Just remember it's all man's fault. Always us and always some sort of tax that'll save us, though it never really does, hence the aforementioned tax has to be permanent.

Thankfully the stupid prats can't convince enough of us of their BS, even with all the half-baked nonsensical links they can pull out of their backsides.

Always On Watch said...

I'm freezing my tush off here in Northern Virginia. December was brutal, and January is going to be as well.

jez said...

MK: it's quantitative measurement.
Refute it, or shut up.

MK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MK said...

"Refute it, or shut up."

You'd really like to silence me wouldn't you jezebel. Never takes much for the inner fascist to reveal itself with you does it.

You can try and make me jezebel, but you'll find ample resistance chump. We will no longer be silenced and marginalized by your kind with your moral depravities and various taxes.

Patrick Carroll said...

...Middle of summer here yet it's cold and pouring with rain...Go figure.

Leticia said...

Jez, nope.

MK, as always, right on target.

AOW, I love the cold and Arkansas is definitely not the place where I can enjoy a lot of snow. But this is where I belong.

jez said...

Not silencing anybody, I invite you again to refute me. It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're talking about, and if you had anything more profound than vulgarity to offer. Your intellectual short-comings are not my fault, MK.

Karen Howes said...

It's global warming, I tell ya!

Most Rev. Gregori said...

I have lived through plenty of frigid January's. The earth and sun has always gone through cycles and will until the end of time.

MK said...

"Not silencing anybody..."

Then you shouldn't tell people to shut up chump.

"I invite you again to refute me."

Why, did you make some sort of scientific discovery or something, peer-review research perhaps? Either way, why should i refute anything you say?

"It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're talking about..."

It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're demanding people to do. Apart from demanding that i should shut up or else, that seemed to be quite clear, even though you promise otherwise.

"...and if you had anything more profound than vulgarity to offer."

What vulgarity? Unless you mean calling someone 'stupid', well what else would you call someone who you feel is stupid? Perhaps you prefer fancy, long-winded wiffle-waffle like 'intellectual short-comings' or something. Well that's you jezebel, i'm more of a straight-forward kind of guy.

"Your intellectual short-comings are not my fault, MK."

I understand that you feel that i'm not all that clever, that's fine with me, your feelings and various moods are of no concern to me. To be frank, i feel the same way about you. However i don't remember blaming you for this new fantasy of yours.

MK said...

"Not silencing anybody..."

Then you shouldn't tell people to shut up chump.

"I invite you again to refute me."

Why, did you make some sort of scientific discovery or something, peer-review research perhaps? Either way, why should i refute anything you say?

"It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're talking about..."

It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're demanding people to do. Apart from demanding that i should shut up or else, that seemed to be quite clear, even though you promise otherwise.

"...and if you had anything more profound than vulgarity to offer."

What vulgarity? Unless you mean calling someone 'stupid', well what else would you call someone who you feel is stupid? Perhaps you prefer fancy, long-winded wiffle-waffle like 'intellectual short-comings' or something. Well that's you jezebel, i'm more of a straight-forward kind of guy.

"Your intellectual short-comings are not my fault, MK."

I understand that you feel that i'm not all that clever, that's fine with me, your feelings and various mood are of no concern to me. To be frank, i feel the same way about you. However i don't remember blaming you for this new fantasy of yours.

MK said...

"Not silencing anybody..."

Then you shouldn't tell people to shut up chump.

"I invite you again to refute me."

Why, did you make some sort of scientific discovery or something, peer-review research perhaps? Either way, why should i refute anything you say?

"It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're talking about..."

It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're demanding people to do or what your actual point is. Apart from demanding that i should shut up or else, that seemed to be quite clear, even though you promise otherwise.

"Your intellectual short-comings are not my fault, MK."

I understand that you feel that i'm not all that clever, that's fine with me, your feelings and various mood are of no concern to me. To be frank, i feel the same way about you. However i don't remember blaming you for this new fantasy of yours.

MK said...

For some reason my comments keep disappearing. Another try.....

"Not silencing anybody..."

Then you shouldn't tell people to shut up chump.

"I invite you again to refute me."

Why, did you make some sort of scientific discovery or something, peer-review research perhaps? Either way, why should i refute anything you say?

"It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're talking about..."

It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're demanding people to do or what your actual point is. Apart from demanding that i should shut up or else, that seemed to be quite clear, even though you promise otherwise.

"Your intellectual short-comings are not my fault, MK."

I understand that you feel that i'm not all that clever, that's fine with me, your feelings and various mood are of no concern to me. To be frank, i feel the same way about you. However i don't remember blaming you for this new fantasy of yours.

WomanHonorThyself said...

snow here again..woohoo!

Leticia said...

Jez, global warming is sham and the earth goes through many changes and we should leave it at that. And politicians need to quit freaking out the people.

MK said...

"Not silencing anybody..."

Then you shouldn't tell people to shut up chump.

"I invite you again to refute me."

Why, did you make some sort of scientific discovery or something, peer-review research perhaps? Either way, why should i refute anything you say?

"It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're talking about..."

It would help, of course, if you had the first clue what you're demanding people to do or what your actual point is. Apart from demanding that i should shut up or else, that seemed to be quite clear, even though you promise otherwise.

"Your intellectual short-comings are not my fault, MK."

i don't remember blaming you over this new fantasy of yours.

jez said...

MK, you are displaying anger at me because you either don't see the difference between "refute it, or shut up" and just plain "shut up"; or because you are unable to refute the measurements reported at http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/2000-2010-warmest-decade-on-record-wmo-reports/.
Either way it's your intellectual short-coming, and either way it is not my fault.

"why should i refute anything you say?"

You described those figures as "BS, half-baked nonsense... pulled out of [my] backside". There must be a reason, what is it? Simply insulting the figures without any substantial objection is a failure style and taste.

Put it this way: if you can refute it, many of us would be interested to see it; but if you can't refute it, then your opinion is worthless, and decorum demands that you recognise this and stop announcing your baseless hunches (or at least, don't couch them in such overbearing terms).

Anyway, why are you so amazingly thin-skinned about me saying "shut up" but you think it's alright to call me a "stupid prat," a "chump," and accuse me of moral depravity (all baseless)?

jez said...

Leticia: It looks like you're claiming that the warming trend has tailed off or reversed, using recent local data as evidence. If so, then why aren't you interested in measurements taken globally that don't agree with you that claim? Or are you? If you aren't interested, what's the point of having an opinion that excludes measured data?

MK said...

"MK, you are displaying anger at me because you either don't see the difference between "refute it, or shut up" and just plain "shut up"; or because you are unable to refute the measurements reported at http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/2000-2010-warmest-decade-on-record-wmo-reports/.
Either way it's your intellectual short-coming, and either way it is not my fault."

I never attempted to refute it you fool because there's no need to and it's still no reason to simply shut up no matter how whiny you feel about it. And i'm still not blaming you moron so you can stop feeling guilty about it. Oh and i wasn't angry at you jezebel, to be frank, you amuse me to no end.

"You described those figures as "BS, half-baked nonsense... pulled out of [my] backside". There must be a reason, what is it? Simply insulting the figures without any substantial objection is a failure style and taste."

Not this particular one, i was referring to you loony warmists in general and all your links and source in general, but being the ego-maniac you are, it can only be about jezebel. If you want to know why, you can google it and assuming your motives are sincere [but i know they're not] you'll see the other side, but you won't because you really don't want to. And i never saw myself as very stylish, tasteful yes, but not stylish. You can have the soft silks and frilly undergarments thanks. I'm surprised you got all upset and whiny over that, bit thin skinned old son?

"Put it this way: if you can refute it, many of us would be interested to see it; "

Really, many? Like who, or do you mean all the other people in your head? Besides, there are plenty of people are more educated than me who have spoken on the subject and none of them have managed to convince any of you, so don't expect me to waste my time on fools who won't be convinced.

"...but if you can't refute it, then your opinion is worthless..."

Yeah to you and all your various loony warmists and i feel the same away about your opinions.

"....and decorum demands...."

Ooohh it's getting serious now, i'm seconds away from detention no doubt.

"...that you recognise this and stop announcing your baseless hunches (or at least, don't couch them in such overbearing terms)."

Good luck with that, i will not shut up, you can't silence us boy and i still ain't falling for your meandering wiffle-waffle. Still wondering what your point is ultimately with all these half-baked, nonsensical links and threats. Why don't you just cut to the chase and tell us about the new tax that'll save the planet.

"Anyway, why are you so amazingly thin-skinned..."

No son, just calling you out for the angry little fascist you really are. You can close your mouth now, the amazement is over.

"...but you think it's alright to call me a "stupid prat," a "chump," and accuse me of moral depravity (all baseless)?"

Yes, because that's what i see your kind as, chump.

Leticia said...

Jez, not really. Scientists have been known to be wrong and when most are operated by the Left, I tend to ignore the "scientific findings" you can't control the weather. And to scare the hell out of people is absolutely wrong.

MK said...

"Scientists have been known to be wrong...."

They also tend to shoot themselves in the ass too. I've been doing a bit of reading over on the loony warmist side and have a look at this, say the planet is warming due to bastards like me jumping into my car to drive 2 blocks for milk and bread. Say the warmist totalitarians get their wildest dreams and we all abandon our homes with toasters and plasma TVs and move into hippie communes recycling our waste matter and all that i.e. zero emissions.

So what will the climate do, asked the curious scientists, well here's what they themselves found using their fancy models - New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, 'zero-emissions' scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/uoc-cct010611.php

So to put this another way, the so-called warming that we dreadful humans are responsible for which apparently started in the last 20-30 years, will take more than a 1000 years to reverse! Not even our great, great, great grandchildren will ever know the point of our sacrifice. Perhaps the scientists want us all to kill ourselves, you know negative emissions to speed up the reversal. And the warmist buffoons wonder why people refuse to buy their codswallop.

Perhaps it's because all these crazy scientists are feeling embarrassed about making hysterical claims only to have them blown sky-high a few years later.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/

One current example are the clowns in Australia who promised us a few years ago that rain would be a thing of the past in certain parts of Australia, those same parts are now meters under water thanks to the cyclical flooding none of their complicated models could predict.

So now they make hysterical claims for centuries down the line, that way they and everyone who heard them will be long dead and so they won't have to issue a sheepish statement of some sort for their earlier stupidity.

jez said...

"I never attempted to refute it you fool because there's no need to"

This is futile. You have an opinion which quantitative, instrumental measurement contradicts, and you see no need to refute or reconcile them. You're opinion is worthless. I'm not being rude, it's a logical conclusion.

If one day you read some books and learn to appreciate irony, consider that you're the one who complains about opponents who "won't be convinced". Actually I can be convinced, it's just that you don't know the difference between a sound argument and demagoguery, so I can understand your confusion. It's sad really.

For example
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/
is disingenuous, since the claims it covers are either very old (how surprising is it that computer models of a chaotic system have improved since 1989?) or they were unrestrained opinion to start with. It'd be more interesting to limit the "predictions" to peer-reviewed claims. I don't recommend anyone to have faith in scientists as a class of people, but the process of which peer review is a part, is strong. (This is a demonstration of why
opinions are worth more when people who hold them see the need to defend or revise them against argument and evidence instead of just screaming shriller and louder like you do).

Also
"the so-called warming that we dreadful humans are responsible for which apparently started in the last 20-30 years [sic -- actually since early C20], will take more than a 1000 years to reverse!"

Only according to a brand-new as-yet-unpublished paper, and only in the southern hemisphere. Give other scientists a chance to respond to it, and if you must mention it this early at least don't mis-report it.

More irony is complaining about my "meandering wiffle-waffle" -- compare the length of my comments with the length of yours. You can tell which are which because mine are shorter and remain on-topic.

Hope this helps.

Oh, and el nino is hard to predict, sorry about that. Predicting long-term climate is a different type of problem. It's like how we *can* accurately predict the number and intensity of the hurricanes that will fall next season, we just can't say exactly when and where they'll be. Our failure in one kind of prediction does not necessarily affect the level of confidence other types of prediction deserve.

Who predicted no more rain in parts of Australia?

jez said...

Leticia, I linked a report of measured instrument data, there isn't much room for editorialisation there. The politics of the fellow holding a thermometer cannot change what the thermometer says.

You want to admit the cool temperatures in your town as evidence but reject the measured temperature from other places. That's called "special pleading," and it's well known as a logical fallacy. It's a mistake.

"And to scare the hell out of people is absolutely wrong."

I'm don't think you believe that, and I agree with you. Should the Bush admin have done more to comfort people who were scared of terrorists?

MK said...

"You're opinion is worthless."

You keep telling yourself that, perhaps when you get tired of caterwauling about it, you'll actually believe it.

"Actually I can be convinced, it's just that you don't know the difference between a sound argument and demagoguery..."

Tripe. No wait, all the scientists who don't hold your position are simply demagogues right, alright i see why you won't be convinced. Fair enough.

"For example
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/
is disingenuous..."

And there it begins.

"...compare the length of my comments with the length of yours."

I was responding to every one of your stupid comments, perhaps if you got to your point, i wouldn't have to but feel free to carry on whining. I'll cherry-pick from now on and i'm sure you'll whine about that too, true to form.

"Only according to a brand-new as-yet-unpublished paper, and only in the southern hemisphere. Give other scientists a chance to respond to it, and if you must mention it this early at least don't mis-report it."

Hang on son, -"The Northern Hemisphere fares better than the south in the computer simulations, with patterns of climate change reversing within the 1000-year timeframe in places like Canada."

Something about mis-reporting springs to mind, wait, you didn't even read it did you and i'm sure when it's published it'll be down to like 30 years or something right. Doubt it.

"Our failure in one kind of prediction does not necessarily affect the level of confidence other types of prediction deserve."

Off course, how very convenient, too convenient for me son, better luck with the codswallop next time.

"Who predicted no more rain in parts of Australia?"

Enjoy, but i'm sure you just won't be convinced.
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm
http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/documents/resources/TR_Web_Ch5i.pdf
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/are_these_floods_really_just_a_warmists_event/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100071290/queensland-floods-but-at-least-the-endangered-mary-river-cod-is-safe-eh/

Why don't you just cut to the chase and tell us about the new tax that'll save the planet. For the sake of the length of comments and all that.

MK said...

"You want to admit the cool temperatures in your town as evidence but reject the measured temperature from other places."

She is right to reject it -
http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/5849-world-meteorological-organization-blows-hot-air-on-global-warming

jez said...

MK thanks (really) for finally addressing the issue.

MK said...

You're welcome, though i really doubt your sincerity. Till next time i guess.

Leticia said...

Jez, I used my state as well as other southern states as an expample, because we hardly get severe cold weather, not unheard of, but rare.

I do believe that the scientists and bureaucrats who are using this global warming scare is used to persuade people into becoming more "green."

In my opinion, it is a political agenda for more control over our freedom.