It was cold this morning.
That likely means many people are discussing the cold and the coming winter. And one of the thing I keep hearing again and again about this winter is about how bad it will be. Last year’s multiple “snow events” and last frigid temps? Nothing compared to what’s coming.
Am I the only one who is wondering “who are these people and why are they saying this?”
Well, after a grueling moment of Google searching, I seem to have uncovered an answer. I should have known. From our friends at The Farmer’s Almanac…
According to the 2015 edition of the Farmers’ Almanac, the winter of 2014–15 will see below-normal temperatures for about three-quarters of the nation. A large zone of very cold temperatures will be found from east of the Continental Divide east to the Appalachians…The coldest outbreak of the season will come during the final week of January into the beginning of February, when frigid arctic air drops temperatures across the Northern Plains to perhaps 40 below zero.
…Over the eastern third of the country, we are expecting an active storm track with a number of storms delivering copious amounts of snow and rain. Near-normal precipitation is expected for the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest States, and Northern Plains, while below-normal precipitation values are forecast for the Southwest States as well as the Upper Midwest and the Great Lakes. The Central and Southern Plains are expected to receive above-average precipitation.
Even though I now know this is coming from a well-known source, I’m not sure what to do with the info. Buy driveway salt? A shovel? Canned food items? A warmer winter coat? Throw a Winter Preparedness Festival and ask Intown Ace to sponsor?
But seriously, perhaps one way to utilize this info is to take some time the next few days and go through your gentry used coats and donate them to someone who might need one this winter. It looks like Brooks Brothers and a realty company in Virginia Highlands are accepting donations for “One Warm Coat” right now. Comment if you know of other local options. Also, if any local non-profit or business wants to join in a become a donation drop off location, get everything set up I’m happy to provide the free publicity.
Map courtesy of Farmer’s Almanac
The Farmer’s Almanac is not a “credible source.”
From Wikipedia “independent studies that retrospectively compare the weather with the predictions have not shown them more accurate than chance”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_Almanac#Weather_prediction
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/winter-forecast-part-iii-the-old-farmers-almanac
Fascinating! Well, at least I phrased the post title in the form of a question.
Just gonna leave this here:
http://thevane.gawker.com/long-range-winter-weather-forecasts-suck-1647161505
There are clothing giveaway points at First Baptist Decatur and First Baptist Avondale. Warm clothes are needed, especially men’s pants, socks and shoes. First Christian Decatur sells good clothing at a steeply discounted price. Children’s and women’s coats are needed at Hagar’s House shelter for women and children. Some of the men at Journey Shelter at Druid Hills Presbyterian could use warmer clothes.
Global warming…?
No question mark needed. 2014 will probably end up being the hottest year ever recorded. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-on-track-to-be-hottest-year-on-record/
True. And every time we get a cold snap, I inevitably hear some goober exclaim, “Well, dang–where’s alla that global warming them libruls keep fussin’ about??”
😐
‘goober’ is a much nicer word than the one I would choose.
Well, me, too–but DM won’t allow it. He never lets us do ANYTHING fun!
What is the temperature supposed to be?
There was an article somewhere recently–AJC?–stating that the coming winter is unlikely to have another polar vortex thingy. We might get some snow but major cold and storms less likely. I have no idea whether the data source was any better than the Farmer’s Almanac. But it makes sense that we might already have an inkling if polar vortices were imminent given that it’s already winter in very northern climes. I’ve never thought that the Farmer’s Almanac was any good for weather but it seems to do well with tides, phases of the moon, and sunrise/sunset. More predictable, I guess.
NOAA: Another warm winter likely for western U.S., South may see colder weather
Repeat of last year’s extremely cold, snowy winter east of Rockies unlikely
“Last year’s winter was exceptionally cold and snowy across most of the United States, east of the Rockies. A repeat of this extreme pattern is unlikely this year, although the Outlook does favor below-average temperatures in the south-central and southeastern states.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141016_winteroutlook.html
Here’s another take: http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/kirk-mellishs-weather-commentary/2014/oct/30/winter-forecast-2014-15/
i’ve heard that the extreme cold is due mainly to the highly variable jet stream. Used to be that the jet stream was fairly consistent going west to east in a more or less straight line. But due to atmospheric and climate changes it is much more “wiggly.” When it wiggles to the south, cold polar air comes down with it.
I read an article that says we are entering a global cooling era just like we did in the 70’s when everyone was scared about another Ice age..
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/31/lawrence-solomon-a-global-cooling-consensus/
I’ve always been cautious when there are political motives behind scientific research. No doubt the weather has been changing. It has been longer than we’ve been around. It’s changed through the industrial revolution and before. It’s changed as the Sun has changed. Ocean has been rising for 14,000 years now. Man made? That’s not really certain.
I too can find any information on the internet to support my statement..
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/29/Climate-Change-is-Not-Our-Fault-So-Lets-Just-Deal-With-It-says-University-of-California-Professor
“I too can find any information on the internet to support my statement..”
And yet the two articles you found are from politically motivated, right wing sites.
Yet, that doesn’t mean they are wrong.
No, but when the poster is talking about political motives being behind scientific research, and then links to two politically motivated sites to support the opposite view, it sort of weakens the point.
Do you not think there are political motives on both sides?
Not equally, no. I’d roughly compare it to so-called “creation science”, where pretty much all of the motivation on that side is religious/political, and there are very few actual scientists who agree with it. Granted, climate change science is a different field, and there is certainly much to be learned still. but at this point almost all of the opposition to climate change is financially/politically motivated.
“but at this point almost all of the opposition to climate change is financially/politically motivated”
A lot, yes. Undoubtedly there have always been and will always be people who care about nothing but making money. But, I wouldn’t categorize it as “almost all”. And all of the scientists who disagree with global warming are summarily silenced, so most of the “conclusions” by those who believe in global warming are going unchecked. Everyone who disagrees, no matter how qualified, are simply labeled as right-wing nutjobs. Perhaps if their voices were allowed to be heard, we would all be better off.
And this is nothing like creation “science”. Not even close.
Give me a break. The left uses climate change as the primary reason for much of their agenda — an agenda they’ve pursued long before anyone came up with the notion of climate change. Heck, even the IPCC Reports contain a “summary for policymakers,” which is about the only section that anyone reads. What could be more political?
Not to mention, we are talking here about “consensus” science, which is not science at all, but politics. If global warming could be proven scientifically there would be no need for the alarmists to resort to consensus inthe first place.
And of course we’re in the midst of a 15 year pause in warming that the climate models did not predict and which climate science can’t explain. The “heat is buried in the oceans” theory is just that — a theory which may be wrong. No one knows. Yet the “debate is settled” drumbeat goes on. It’s almost as if climate change is more of a political rallying cry than anything . . . nah, couldn’t be.
“I’ve always been cautious when there are political motives behind scientific research.”
I’m even more suspicious when the profit motive is behind opposition to scientific research, as there is a lot of money being spent by certain industries to dispute climate change. There are certainly stronger motives to ignore climate change than to act on it. That isn’t to say the science is certain, or that the future outcomes are certain, but I trust scientists more on this issue than business or political types.
I don’t want to digress into a debate about global warming b/c neither of us will change the other’s mind. However, if you don’t think there is profit motive by those on the other side of the argument, you are mistaken. How many millions has Gore made off global warming? How many millions have executives of companies pushing green technologies pocketed after the US Govt bailed their asses out? There is an equally huge lobby on the pro climate change side as the other, and saving the planet isn’t the sole reason they are spending billions pushing legislation in the name of climate change.
“There is an equally huge lobby on the pro climate change side as the other, ”
Point me to who is spending an equal amount on lobbying as the oil, gas and coal industry.
It sure ain’t the scientists whose works and results are being debated and criticized by idiot politicians who couldn’t pass a seventh grade science class!
It is maddening that, at this point in history, we demand that politicians describe their religious beliefs, but don’t ask them to demonstrate any basic knowledge of science. Why did we have to sit through an hour of the two candidates (McCain and Obama) for President of the U.S. being questioned by a preacher? Was either candidate ever questioned about climate change? Or any other subject related to science? Not saying they have to hold a particular view, but how about some basic understanding of the subject.
So, you admit that Obama doesn’t have a basic understanding on the subject of climate change, but yet you want him enacting policies to combat it? Scary, huh?
And yes you walked into that one!
My point is I really don’t know, since neither candidate was interviewed by a scientist, but by a preacher. I do know that both that both tended to look uncomfortable while (it seemed to me) pretending to hold strong religious beliefs.
Not just related to a basic understanding of science, I’ve always wondered whether a minimum IQ or SAT/ACT score should be required for public office. I guess that would be unfair to citizens who are intelligent but don’t test well. I’m not saying that basic intelligence and education is all that’s necessary to govern well but a lack of it seems like a bad idea.
Many years ago, I had a science professor who made the claim that the average education level for a county commissioner in Georgia was 8th grade. Don’t know where he got that from, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he were right.
OK, you caught me in a bit of hyperbole (although all of the oil and gas lobby isn’t about global warming). But, please tell me you recognize that there are many trying to profit off of climate change.
Of course people will try to profit off of it. That’s a totally different thing than saying it’s not real. Real or not, there will be people trying to profit and others trying to protect their own profits based on the status quo.
What’s irksome to anyone with a scientific background (full disclosure, I was a PhD scientific researcher before becoming the ambulance chaser most of you know me as) is the politicization of “science”. We have schools in Texas, Kansas and, by God, right here in Georgia, that are teaching creationism as science! When “scientific fact” is defined as much by public opinion polls as it is by hard evidence, that’s a serious cultural failing. Worse than that, there’s a significant chunk of the hardcore right-wing who are proud to be defiant of science, as if it’s the enemy. When we allow factions like this to dominate, or even affect in the slightest our public policy on scientific and medical issues, we have failed.
Rant over. Happy Halloween y’all!
No more serious that allowing people who blindly believe we should preserve trees over all else to affect policy.
Sorry, but I’m gonna have to call BS on this particular festering turd of a false equivalency argument. Heaven knows I hate that tree ordinance as much as anyone else in COD, but there’s no equating the effect that stupid set of rules will have on us with the danger inherent in allowing uneducated religious political hacks control what’s taught in our public school classrooms. If it were up to them, modern medicine would still largely consist of praying away pandemics, and climate science would consist of the premise that hurricanes & other natural disasters are caused by fornication and gay folk getting married.
If you don’t think a small contingent on the far left is as active as a very small contingent on the far right trying to dictate what is taught in our schools based on nothing more than their particular set of ideals, you are a fool. And I think you missed my point – stop pointing fingers to the right – point to the far right and to the far left – you will find at both ends of the spectrum those who want to enact policy based on their unfounded beliefs.
And although you clearly think anyone who considers themselves a Christian is an “uneducated religious political hacks “, those that hold those ridiculous beliefs you mentioned number only a very few. And they hold little to no political influence.
“And they hold little to no political influence.”
I believe it was one of our own elected congressional representatives who said evolution was a teaching spawned from the pit of hell, or some such nonsense. As much as I’d like to discount their political influence, it would be wishful thinking (though I do believe it is on the decline nationally).
“And although you clearly think anyone who considers themselves a Christian is an “uneducated religious political hacks…“
You’re being quite presumptuous in what you believe I “clearly think”. I personally know plenty of Christians who don’t fit this label–but sadly, there are too many who do. A lot of them are in my own family.
“…those that hold those ridiculous beliefs you mentioned number only a very few. And they hold little to no political influence.”
I think you’re in denial, my friend. That, or you just haven’t been paying close attention. The extreme right-wing tail (much of which comprises people who fit my description) is now wagging the Republican dog, and there’s not a bloody thing what passes for the GOP “establishment” can do about it. It’s what happens when you cynically play to the lunatic fringe for votes by convincing them that their beliefs, which are largely colored by their bigotry & prejudice against those who look, worship, or love differently than they, are as valid & rational as those of the mainstream. I don’t know which type of Republican you are, and it’s not really my business to know, but the plain fact is that you keep on denying that your party has forever changed from being the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Scorch-The-Earth. The Democrats aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but they’re at least not actively trying to dismantle the scientific underpinnings of our education system’s curriculum.
While I do not disagree with you on the GOP necessarily, your quote of:
“The Democrats aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but they’re at least not actively trying to dismantle the scientific underpinnings of our education system’s curriculum.”
could easily be changed to:
“The Republicans aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but they’re at least not actively trying to dismantle the underpinnings of our Constitutional Republic, which has done more, for far more, than any other society in history.”
Also, are you talking about creationism vs. evolution? Is that really still being attacked in schools? I mean it may be, I just have not heard much about it is a while.
“The Republicans aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but they’re at least not actively trying to dismantle the underpinnings of our Constitutional Republic, which has done more, for far more, than any other society in history.”
Please, do elucidate. I genuinely want to know what you meant by “they’re at least not actively trying to dismantle the underpinnings of our Constitutional Republic…”. What is it that the Dems are doing to effect such a change?
Was that a serious question? How much time you got?
Well, yes, actually I was serious. I’m genuinely curious to know where you’re coming from–but I don’t want you to feel you’re obligated to waste your time. So, if you’re inclined, pick just three issue/examples that illustrate where you believe the Democrats are “actively trying to dismantle the underpinnings of our Constitutional Republic…” I’d be interested to know what they are.
” I don’t know which type of Republican you are”
I can assure I am not the type who shares views with the “lunatic fringe”, as you call them. But, can I point out that not once in this conversation did you not insult those people for their views when describing them? What happened to being a tolerant liberal?
“It’s what happens when you cynically play to the lunatic fringe”
This is why are political system is broken. Both parties pander to their respective ends of the spectrum in the primaries, and then the successful candidates run to the middle as fast as they can for the general election.
Let’s see: you equate my refusing to acknowledge political/religious philosophies that would deny certain groups of people the same equal protections guaranteed by our Constitution with intolerance? That’s to say that people whose beliefs would entitle them to discriminate against others who look/love/worship differently from their should be accorded the same level of respect as those whose beliefs condemn such disenfranchisement as morally wrong. If that’s your definition of “insulting” and/or “intolerant”, then I’ll wear that mantle. The false equivalency mindset demands such a result, and I’m not buying into it. You, however, are the last person who should point any fingers about insults. It’s one thing for me to refer to a group of hypothetical persons as the lunatic fringe, and quite another for you to tell me, personally, that I’m “a fool” if I don’t see things your way. (So much for no personal attacks being allowed on this board.) Please pull the 2 x 4 out of your own eye before you attempt to flick the mote out of others’.
I was going to pull it but I figured you guys would work through it since you’re both regulars. But ultimately I’ll leave it up to you. I generally error on the side of moderation – just ask all the folks who hate when I moderate anything.
It’s cool, DM. I spoke my piece.
“I was a PhD scientific researcher before becoming the ambulance chaser ”
seriously?
For realz. Emory ’00, Genetics and Molecular Biology. I might lie about some things, but not that.
Jesus. In the history of this planet, climate has changed dramatically. It is constantly changing. To think that we have an impact on this massive force that causes this change is just silly. We can’t come close to affecting what mother nature has in store for our climate. Get over yourselves.
I don’t think there’s much dispute that human activity can have an impact. But the extent of that impact is unknown.
“I don’t think there’s much dispute that human activity can have an impact. But the extent of that impact is unknown.”
Now that is a reasonable statement.
If we are talking micro, maybe. But not on a macro level.
Then you disagree with 99% of the scientists who have actually studied this. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it doesn’t change my facts, and public policy should not be based on it.
Source?
My bad. I should have said 97%, according to NASA. And yes, this is referring to macro-level changes…
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Honestly, I couldn’t care less whether any individual person “agrees” with the science. Deny it all you like, so long as the head-in-the-sand scientific ignorance doesn’t shape our response to it.
So, they interviewed them all? Or just the ones who answered correctly?
The reference are given and you can read the actual compilation studies. Forget the number percentage, the bottom line is that every major scientific organization with any involvement in climate change studies is in agreement. If you want to ignore that and continue blind denial, that’s fine.
Yes, they are in agreement that the climate is changing. There is also a consensus that humans can have some impact. But, that is where agreement, and the evidence, stops.
To the first point, no sh*t. It has been changing since the beginning of time and will never stop changing.
To the second point, IMHO we need something more concrete before stringent, economy crippling legislation is enacted. Please note that I am not saying that we, individually, should not be more mindful of our impact on the environment and act appropriately.
We just wrote essentially the same thing. My comment is in moderation though. I think it is because I wrote “sh*t” without the “*”….
I’m not trying to shape policy, you are. I believe wholeheartedly in preserving our wilderness. I am an outdoors guy and do everything in my power (minimal) to make sure I do my part. I think smog sucks and we should try to curb it. However, I do not believe human behavior has much to do with how our climate changes. What caused the ice age? What caused every “age” of our planet? Certainly not humans. It’s funny that so many of you talk about religion/religious folks (of which I am not), but disregard their own beliefs as to the evolution of the planet. If an ice age is coming, ain’t shit we are going to do about it. If a Heat Age (for lack of a better term) is coming, ain’t shit we are going to do about it. I’m not willing to put forth legislation that restricts the growth our our society on the belief (because it is not proven) that we cause macro climate change. Your own link says they agree that “very likely” causes. This is not fact. It is opinion.
But if the earth changed its axis of rotation, or the sun became hotter, or a volcano of Vesuvian scale erupted we could take measurements and predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy how the climate would be effected over the next century.
But we can’t do that with a well documented increase in levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, an increase with no possible other source than the parallel increase in the mining and burning of fossil fuels?
I don’t expect anything to really change since the money will win and the money is in oil, gas and coal. But I’m not buying any beach front property and I’m going to lobby my legislator to stop bailing out communities damaged from coastal floods. They can pay their own flood insurance if they can find it.
“But, please tell me you recognize that there are many trying to profit off of climate change.”
Of course, just as people are trying to profit off of Ebola, cancer, earthquakes, etc. I look at like this: if a minority of the scientific community viewed climate change as man-caused and a threat, and they were funded almost exclusively by the green energy industry, I’d be extremely skeptical. But nearly the opposite is true.
Since y’all have gone off on this tangent, did anyone else hear that the ozone layer is beginning to heal?
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/10/6132991/ozone-layer-starting-to-recover
The fact that the ozone layer fell apart in conjunction with extensive CFC use, and is now healing in conjunction with a CFC ban, is just coincidence. What we’re seeing are just normal cyclical variations.
Yup. This here.^ Because 30 years of peer-reviewed climate science cain’t be right. Amirite?
The same peer-reviewed climate science that had to acknowledge that we have not warmed in 15 years?
They call it agnotology — the history of manufactured ignorance. How often lately have you heard a politician answer a question about climate change with, “I’m not a scientist so I can’t really answer that question”?
Probably too late for the train but I will post anyway for the conspiracy theorists. The practice and process of spreading doubt about science that threatens free market decisions has been well documented in “Merchants of Doubt” by Oreskes and Conway.
Since the 1980’s, the same group of conservative physicists have questioned scientific consensus in areas as diverse as acid rain, tobacco smoking, global warming and pesticides. In each case the tactics have been to : “discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt”.
From Wikipedia: The book states that Seitz, Singer, Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow were all fiercely anti-communist and they viewed government regulation as a step towards socialism and communism. The authors argue that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, they looked for another great threat to free market capitalism and found it in environmentalism. They feared that an over-reaction to environmental problems would lead to heavy-handed government intervention in the marketplace and intrusion into people’s lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
If doubt is the problem, the alarmists have only to remove it through the strength of the science. The fundamental assumptions of current climate science are that climate is well understood and can be predicted. If those are true, then show us — predict climate accurately. The models have already failed to predict the “pause” that’s now lasted 15 years, but let’s give them another chance. Have the “consensus” tell us when thr pause will end and how hot it will get. If they’re right, the force of their science will be hard to resist. If not, then it will again become clear that climate is in fact not well understood and cannot be predicted, thus destroying the very foundation of the current “consensus.”
You know, no one questions the “consensus” of e=mc2, because it’s been proven by actual observation. No one resorts to consensus science where scientific proof is available. It’s only where the science is NOT strong enough that consensus is invoked.
Speaking of which, anyone else notice how it’s lately become increasingly accepted that satrurated fat is not in fact a cause of heart disease? It looks as if a key scientific consensus on diet didn’t even last 20 years.
This is a true, not rhetorical or sarcastic question–in my passing brushes with sources like National Geographic, the newspaper, NPR, college alumni magazines, I could swear that I’ve seen articles that document things like glaciers melting and breaking off, sea level changes, effects on the skiing and maple syrup gathering in New England, and other seemingly objective signs of global warming. Not true? Since this isn’t an area of expertise or great interest of mine, I don’t remember details but just the sense that I probably won’t be able to keep my head in the sand forever about global warming but will have to deal with the consequences. This has seemed like actual observation to me. Of course, two people can observe the same reality and come to different conclusions but I’ve definitely had the sense that global warming evidence was not just in the realm of theory and belief.
Fair question for sure. IMO those are consistent with the AGW hypothesis but essentially anecdotal — akin to the “goober” who uses a cold spring day to counter the notion that the planet as a whole is getting warmer. If we are to believe in GLOBAL warming then it has to be shown that the planet is getting hotter on the whole. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges the 15 year pause in mean global surface temperature, which is powerful evidence that the consensus is either (a) wrong or (b) based on much flimsier science than represented.
I really don’t know what is correct here, though I’d bet (if I had to) on the current AGW consensus being wrong. I do believe that the whole “debate is settled” and “let’s act now” crowd is misguided at best and inherently political at worst. But I try to read up and keep an open mind as new evidence comes in. There are a lot of closed minds on both sides of this debate.
That whole 15 year pause you keep pointing to does not really mean what you think it means.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/
No, it means exactly what I think it means — global surface temps have not gone up. The article you linked to acknowledges that but tries to explain it away with more of the “heat is hiding in the oceans” stuff I acknowledged previously. There’s no proof of it, and in fact in AR5 the IPCC gave this as only one of three possible explanations for the pause in warming. And again, it’s sort of convenient to say now that the heat must be hiding deep in the oceans, and to act as if it’s an obvious thing, when the climate models never predicted the pause in the first place. To me it signals they don’t understand the climate as well as they let on.
And looky here at this timely UN report. Even Fox News hasn’t been able to spin it around yet.
http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/11/02/un-climate-report-offers-stark-warnings-hope/
This from the latest edition of “The Economist,” not exactly a bastion of liberalism:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains?fsrc=nlw%7Cnewe%7C3-11-2014%7CNA