February 20, 2015

"The coldest day ever! Temperature records broken across the country by the 'Siberian Express' cold snap as Manhattan hits..."

"... 1F."

LOL, from Madison, Wisconsin.

77 comments:

AJ Lynch said...

F-ing Global Warming er Climate Change.

Seeing Red said...

They are weenies. It's fur time for those in the deep freeze.

traditionalguy said...

Ice Ages gotta start somewhere. Instead of warming raising sea levels on coastal town the cooling will be raising ice levels, and shortening growing seasons, on the Midwest...I meant the North.

mrs.e said...

LOL, from Siberia.

Revenant said...

It is times like this when I remember "oh yeah, THIS is why I put up with California government".

Anonymous said...

Don't talk to me about cold. I live in LA and had to close my WINDOWS last night.

Meade said...

Oops... sorry. I meant to set the dial on the Climate Change Reversal Bio Geo Engineering program to "normal" and by accident set it to "AB Normal". My bad.

dreams said...

"30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says"

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-leading-scientist-says/

traditionalguy said...

On a night like this it is interesting to contemplate how many Warmists like Obama think we will believe their hoax that a colder and colder global winter is proof of sneaky greenhouse gasses warming the earth.

Oops. The $20,000,000,000,000 spent on bad computer models has been a total fail. There is NO CO2 feedback trapping heat at all.

Titus said...

Mary, I lived in Wisconsin until I was 17 and never seen the snow that we received in the fabulous city of Boston-home to the highest number of Phd's in the world.

tits.

Terry said...

It would be interesting to do a projection of estimated property values if global warming occurs and raises sea levels vs. what people are really paying for land close to the sea.

themightypuck said...

In Montana it has hit at least 50F 11/20 says this month. It has only failed to reach 32F on two days (29 and 30F).

themightypuck said...

I should say in Bozeman, MT

Terry said...

Revenant wrote:
It is times like this when I remember "oh yeah, THIS is why I put up with California government".

Big Island mo' better, Revenant.
Hilo hi and low 80 and 66.
Newer houses on a half-acre lot for $200k on the windward side, property taxes $900/yr. Local government is weird, you're pretty much on your own where I live in 96785.
No mandatory recycling.
Stay away, haole! We don't want you Cali refugees here messing up things for the locals!

rhhardin said...

It's not real until there's oil dipstick heaters outside the motels.

Bart said...

when I lived in Siberia the high temp for Jan was -35C. I cannot believe that no one in NYC goes outside when it is 1F that is not even cold.

Revenant said...

Big Island mo' better, Revenant.

I've heard a lot of nice things about it. Never been there myself.

n.n said...

It's chaos, man. Even the IPCC admits as much. The best people can hope for is forecasts of the near future that have accuracy inversely proportionate to the product of time and space offsets from an established reference.

Michael K said...

"Ice Ages gotta start somewhere."

The solar minimum has not ended and is longer than any since the "Maunder Minimum" that introduced the Little Ice Age.

Let's see if the Great Lakes ice is gone by the end of summer. That is how glaciation begins.

Big Mike said...

Gaia is trying to tell us something with this weather. We should be paying attention.

MadisonMan said...

Milwaukee hasn't had a winter-time record low temperature in 19 years!

(Obscure weather tidbit of the day for all of you; I just learned that one today)

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

LOL. Greetings from Moscow, RU.Last week and all next week it has been in the upper 30s.

virgil xenophon said...

Global Warming! Global Warming!
Global Warming!



Nevermind...

Titus said...

I constantly make my high caste Indian hubby laugh, yet he always bitches at me and calls me midwestern loser pig.

He is younger, richer, more muscles and better looking than me, but I run the show.

What I say goes, and he is actually my bitch.

Isn't that strange and interesting.

We don't have sex anymore either.

Titus said...

I call him a brown, nig turd, who should be hanged in the U.S...seriously I do.

I told him he should go to Alabama and get paralyzed by some cracker cop. That actually happened btw.

He says everyone thinks he is Italian....I am like no they don't foreigner curry breath.

What do you think Althouse? You have seen a pic my muscled stud...who I own.

David said...

It does not seem nearly so cold if you believe that the science is settled.

SteveR said...

Yep, solar minimum. The real inconvenient truth.

wildswan said...

One degree F is very cold when you don't button up your coat as in DC or when your clothes have penis holes in them like those NYC clothes featured awhile back or when you wear ear muffs when the temperature is 57 degrees F as they do on the Gulf of Mexico.

But one degree F is not cold when you wear a hat, a scarf, gloves, boots, warm socks, a heavy jacket, a sweater, a blouse, a T shirt and flannel lined jeans. It could even be -25 F and be quite bearable outside between the car and the grocery store, for instance. Plus wearing the right clothes develops muscles just like wearing weights on your arms and legs.

We'll be OK until the glacier comes down to Milwaukee again - it's only been gone 13,000 years and why not a return engagement?

Fritz said...

-1.9 here in slower Maryland this morning. The Chesapeake is trying to freeze over, and Tangier Island has been cut off by the ice.

I want my warming back.

Gahrie said...

We don't have sex anymore either

Well, it is starting to sound like a real marriage......

Bob R said...

Yeah, we had a high of 4F yesterday, in Blacksburg, VA. Lots of busted pipes around town. The combination of the overdress and the under dressed was pretty funny. Not laughing too much. A lot of people have clothes for normal local weather and something in the back of the closet for skiing or hiking. Lots of people wearing ski pants this week.

MadisonMan said...

I've been in long johns all week. Duofold. I got them when I was in 11th grade -- almost 40 years ago.

That's quality! (That also demonstrates that I grew tall early)

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"Global Warming! Global Warming!
Global Warming!



Nevermind..."

As Limbaugh used to say, you made a good point and it wasn't the point you were trying to make.

Yes "Nevermind" times 1000. That is power. AReasonableMan may seem hopelessly imbecilic to many, but the proclamations from his eminations that amount to "we won" could be correct and assuming victory (confidence) has been proven to work more than unassuming humbleness has been proven to succeed. Churchill has the money quote about written history. Video changed and changes of course, not negating but indeed mitigating.

Obama has, most recently, rewritten history to claim Islam had something to do with America's founding.

It didn't, any more than the price of tea amongst two smelly, old orthodox harridans from China circa 1776.

Will the web remember?

No.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Andrew Breitbart could have easily been aborted.

As could have I, had my mom not been Catholic. She is progressive yet didn't vote again for Obama because of "labor" issues.

We see people proclaiming they've seen fire and rain and shit ourselves with praise.

I've seen hot anarchy and cold communistic ideology. No no I've never seen shit off of O'Ryans (for the non-artists that spelling and meaning is intentional) starbelt-cluster firebomb galactic meltdown; don't want to or care to talk about it if I do neither.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Titus is a great addition to any conversation for two reasons:

1. To enlighten oneself to never attribute to a group one individual's positive or negative aspectionally attributes.

2. 1.

Far from snark, "2." is most important.

It has to do with time.

YEAH YOU READ RIGHT WHAT I WROTE: TIME.

Patrick said...

Ha. It's going to be 18 below where I am tomorrow.

I'm sleeping outside.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

The climate in the White House changed when Michelle, the conscious of the White House, asked The Most Powerful Man In The History Of The World, The President Of The United States (at any given moment) to Save Our Girls.

This is a link to stories of one who cares, not POTUS.

So now millions of rich white men, with big muscles, might via the wealth, and ego galore, have to tear down this woman.

Why not tear down ISIL? Why not Save Our Girls? You get me 1.2 dollars million American and I will coordinate you saving the girls.

Fear now, fear then.

Okay always fear then.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

National Enquirer might have been on it since Orson, but I am just catching on now.

Michelle, the angelic, soon-to-be-with-capitals, wanted her hubby to do something helpful; or, minimum-focused-wise, not as hurtful.

I am not Moby.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

You want fame?

Drugs make you cool: the higher the OD the cooler you are.

Oops: too close to (their) home.

I praise the artist who used a cocaine-sniffing Oscar stat to make a difference.

If all she did was made me aware (it was a dude) MORE THE BETTER.

MORE BETTER EVERYONE.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Anyone, and I do hope it's in my mind only, who considers the abortions by demographic before Roe v Wade and after has to make one realize, with zero allowance for doubt, Barack Obama knows he would have been aborted had his "MOTHER" had the "choice."

That makes things different.

I regret I gave Guiliani money in 2008. I did it because I knew abortion had NOTHING, or at least very little, very very little, to do with a POTUS.

But it does, I now know, have a lot to do with how folks view humans.

Rudy speaks a lot of truth, and I give him a lot of credit but, like with Bobby Novak, err Robert Novak, I wish he would have seen in William Frank Buckley Junior, in person, what I saw decades later through words/PBS/radio. And that includes abortion's horrors.

Fucking Reagan and shit too.

Reynolds and shit.

Probably Drudge and Andy.

FUCK

LYNNDH said...

1degree? Here in Colorado that is SHORTS weather! Sorry Ann

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Oh, and yeah I owe M. Kennedy an apology.

As likely to take a drunken slur as he is a drunken apology: my words never severed a heart from a brain.

I haven't accomplished anything worthy of note either, and my assumption is he has and in fact contributes more to this blog forum than I.

I am sorry (and not in a "Tombstone" 'I'm sorry I'm so hungover sense' neither) that the connections we could have Chris Langaned weren't connected.

You had the IQ and connections too.

I have jack shit.

Mark Leavy said...

I've always loved the "coldest/hottest day in ~200 years story.

So... 200 years ago they had the same weather we are having now?

James Pawlak said...

It's Czar Putin's fault!

Paul said...

Abnormal cold = GLOBAL WARMING.

Abnormal heat = GLOBAL WARMING.

Normal = GLOBAL WARMING.

And that folks, is how liberals look at it.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Not subscribing doesn't mean I don't think.

Barack could be satisfying Michelle to an extent not much else is too important, and, GIVEN, in the sense I SHOWED YOU HOW TO THINK AND WHY AND YOU AIN'T BE LISTENING YO what the Kennedy's did...

And the Clintons too.

And the ...

Oh, and

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Good God Almight I have found an instance whereby Sally Kohn is correct.

Forgot.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Most important is any and all, foremost, think alike.

Beyond that, murder mass does.

It will do too, just sayin' it does.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

It will due too

tim maguire said...

My sister-in-law who lives in a ski-resort mountain town in Northern California posted pictures on her Facebook page this week of her son in a bathing suit at the lake. Meanwhile, interior water pipes in my house froze. I'm as global-warming skeptic as any honest non-stupid person, but this cold winter is local.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

Meade wrote: My bad.

AB someone...

Quaestor said...

-1.9 here in slower Maryland this morning

Slower, Maryland... hmmm. Obviously a DC suburb.

Gumshoe Grimshaw said...

Ann, I'm a New Jerseyer living a few miles from NYC who, while very nippy, would never dream of complaining about such things to my friends in the Upper Midwest. Out of curiosity, what is the coldest temperature you've ever experienced up there?

tim in vermont said...

I was "complaining" (bragging really) to some friends in Florida that it was -15 the other day. They were not impressed, they said "We have a FREEZE WARNING here!"

Michael McNeil said...

Let's see if the Great Lakes ice is gone by the end of summer. That is how glaciation begins.

No it doesn't.

Hint: glaciation is a land ice (not lake or sea ice) phenomenon. It typically begins on north-facing (in the northern hemisphere) mountain slopes somewhat sheltered from the sun where (some) snow may last through the heat of summer, which can then build up year after year — eventually perhaps, in the case of an Ice Age, filling the mountain valleys up to the peaks and spreading out into the plains in all directions. It doesn't start on lakes or seas, though mountain/continental glaciers can spread out onto such bodies of water later on.

It's important for people interested in the future of ice on this planet to recognize the enormous distinction between land and sea ice. It may well be that the floating pack ice in the seas surrounding the earth's poles (typically no more than a few feet or a few dozen feet thick at most) will disappear (after the height of summer each year) sometime during future decades.

That, however, is a very different matter from the situation facing the enormous (freshwater) ice sheets that presently bury the subcontinent/continents of Greenland and Antarctica beneath more than a mile thick layer (what is essentially a geological stratum) of ice. Barring some enormous change to Earth's energy budget, those will take centuries to melt.

tim in vermont said...

It doesn't start on lakes or seas, though mountain/continental glaciers can spread out onto such bodies of water later on.

I am pretty sure that the general consensus is that ice ages start from expanding sea ice in the Antarctic, like what is going on now, though I do not say it is on the scale yet to tip us into an ice age.

It may well be that the floating pack ice in the seas surrounding the earth's poles (typically no more than a few feet or a few dozen feet thick at most) will disappear (after the height of summer each year) sometime during future decades.

Based on models that can't seem to get it right. How is total sea ice doing in the satellite era doing anyway? Oh look, here's a link!

Did the models predict that global sea ice would be the same in 2015 as it was in 1980 at the dawn of the satellite era?

Michael McNeil said...

I am pretty sure that the general consensus is that ice ages start from expanding sea ice in the Antarctic, like what is going on now, though I do not say it is on the scale yet to tip us into an ice age.

Your "pretty sure" is wrong. Notice that surrounding the South Pole is an enormous continent: Antarctica: land. The Ice Age in Antarctica (it is still locked in an ice age) began and continues on land. The sea ice is secondary and relatively trivial.

As for the rest, yes the models that predict global warming don't account for the last couple decades. Time will tell whether warming picks up again. I don't wish to debate that right now. But even presuming that the models are right, the huge glaciers/ice caps covering Antarctica and Greenland are not at all at anything like a proximate risk; centuries will be needed for that, even under warming assumptions. And that is my point.

tim in vermont said...

Your "pretty sure" is wrong. Notice that surrounding the South Pole is an enormous continent: Antarctica: land. The Ice Age in Antarctica (it is still locked in an ice age) began and continues on land. The sea ice is secondary and relatively trivial.

I guess I can believe an anonymous commenter or the peer reviewed literature as reported by Live Science.

researchers found evidence that Earth's polar ice sheets began growing between 3.1 million and 2.7 million years ago. However, this time frame means that the glacier growth preceded the growth of major glaciers across North America — the earliest compelling evidence suggests Northern glaciers began growing about 2.7 million years ago.

But I am sure your opinion carries more weight on account of you believe "the consensus."

Meade said...

@Quaestor, ha ha. Never gets old.

MadisonMan said...
"I've been in long johns all week."

Stick to your long johns until your long johns stick to you. — Old Farmers Almanac

Michael McNeil said...

Two looks at Antarctica of the past: before its ice age — a time when coastal Antarctica had a climate similar to modern coastal California (!) — and somewhat later while glaciation was developing.

As the piece (“A dynamic early East Antarctic Ice Sheet suggested by ice-covered fjord landscapes”) notes in its Abstract (I quote because I think it's interesting):

“The first Cenozoic ice sheets initiated in Antarctica from the Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains1 and other highlands as a result of rapid global cooling ~34 million years ago2. In the subsequent 20 million years, at a time of declining atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations2 and an evolving Antarctic circumpolar current2, sedimentary sequence interpretation3 and numerical modelling4 suggest that cyclical periods of ice-sheet expansion to the continental margin, followed by retreat to the subglacial highlands, occurred up to thirty times. These fluctuations were paced by orbital changes and were a major influence on global sea levels5. Ice-sheet models show that the nature of such oscillations is critically dependent on the pattern and extent of Antarctic topographic lowlands. Here we show that the basal topography of the Aurora Subglacial Basin of East Antarctica, at present overlain by 2–4.5 km of ice, is characterized by a series of well-defined topographic channels within a mountain block landscape. The identification of this fjord landscape, based on new data from ice-penetrating radar, provides an improved understanding of the topography of the Aurora Subglacial Basin and its surroundings, and reveals a complex surface sculpted by a succession of ice-sheet configurations substantially different from today’s. At different stages during its fluctuations, the edge of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet lay pinned along the margins of the Aurora Subglacial Basin, the upland boundaries of which are currently above sea level and the deepest parts of which are more than 1 km below sea level. Although the timing of the channel incision remains uncertain, our results suggest that the fjord landscape was carved by at least two iceflow regimes of different scales and directions, each of which would have over-deepened existing topographic depressions, reversing valley floor slopes.”

Michael McNeil said...

tim, tim…. Your supposed rebuttal is nothing of the kind. Nobody is disputing that Antarctica froze up first. But please note that those polar glaciers your reference talks about are occurring on land. Not sea. Sea ice is not an issue.

Michael McNeil said...

The terminology Tim pointed to is concerning an “ice sheet” specifically. The floating pack ice of the polar seas does not constitute an “ice sheet.” As Wikipedia notes in this regard:

“An ice sheet is a mass of glacier ice that covers surrounding terrain and is greater than 50,000 km^2 (19,000 sq mi), thus also known as continental glacier. The only current ice sheets are in Antarctica and Greenland; during the last glacial period at Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) the Laurentide ice sheet covered much of North America, the Weichselian ice sheet covered northern Europe and the Patagonian Ice Sheet covered southern South America.”

As I say, sea ice is not at issue.

tim in vermont said...

So you are going to Wikipedia now? Ha ha ha! Whatever. I can't even deal with that. The Encyclopedia of people with an agenda and plenty of time to push it.

The article uses the term ice sheet to include sea ice, but if Wikipedia says no...

he researchers suggested that the growth of the Antarctic ice sheet altered ocean currents worldwide. More Antarctic sea ice would have meant there was less warm, salty water from the North Atlantic that rose upwards and mixed with the surface waters surrounding Antarctica.

I bet you think that Antarctica could get colder without the sea ice expanding.


Here is an experiment for you, try to get the gel point of bio-diesel there. You won't. You know why? Because it is too political. I suppose next you will be quoting "Skeptical Science."

Anyway, if you believe it, it is probably true and that is all the evidence that you seem to require, the underlying logic of your position notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

Michael McNeil wrote: "As for the rest, yes the models that predict global warming don't account for the last couple decades. Time will tell whether warming picks up again. I don't wish to debate that right now."

Everyone already forgets the much touted, "Storm of the Century," that was predicted for January 25, 2015, for much of the northeast, including NYC which prompted the state to shut down the subway system, in advance, and which resulted in five or so slushy inches there in three or so here in Boston. Forecasters in the day or so following this mis-cast blamed computer models that were in use and promised to be more vigilant.

So Michael tell me how computer models for decades or centuries work. You don't want to debate whether warming will pick up again - I bet, although, in post-truth America you can ignore facts all day even in a debate.

tim in vermont said...

What has really bit the warmies in the butt is their acceptance of the Hockey Stick and its lack of variability in the past. This left them wide open to getting blind-sided by The Pause.

But of course the Hockey Stick must be defended at all costs because the public is too stupid to hear the truth about climate. It might muddle our thinking, doncha know.

Michael McNeil said...

@poker:
I'm not unwilling to debate global warming. I just didn't see much point in delving off in that direction when we were discussing tim's evident confusion concerning sea ice versus land ice.

Concerning AGW, or “climate change,” I'm not a radical proponent. It does appear that the sun's heat is coming in and less heat is going out, due theoretically to increasing amounts of insulating, so-called greenhouse gases. That should eventually result in the planet warming up. Past eras of a much warmer planet do appear to have had higher amounts of greenhouse gases. As to why the Earth is not warming right now, that's unknown but interesting. My answer would be that 400 ppm of CO2 is insufficient to override other climate change factors that are going on, and will remain so probably until the level of CO2 has risen quite a bit higher.

My biggest departure from the climate change would-be bandwagon is that I disagree sharply with their typically catastrophic conclusions. Geologic data indicate that this planet has been considerably warmer than at present for the large bulk of the last quarter of a billion years. That wasn't a catastrophe, life thrived during those eras. Returning to such conditions, over a period of centuries (barring substantial geoengineering or other effective remedies) seems not unlikely to me.

That is a far cry though from people like, e.g., David Brin, a science-fiction writer and Democrat partisan, who argues seemingly with a straight face that what we face (unless we right now take serious steps) is an unstoppable catastrophic progression toward planet Venus like conditions. I think that's rank fear mongering and ridiculous on its face, if this weren't so serious. I could hardly believe it when I heard someone seriously making that argument, but it is so. I'm totally opposed to that, just on the grounds of the past that the earth itself has experienced — no runaway greenhouse effect.

Trashhauler said...

I think extended exposure to cold makes people stupid.

It's freezing here.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Most likely there is a stronger term than "impotent" to describe a man who watches little girls raped and killed in the name of Allah.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Nature's transcendent truth is killing is nourishing fun.

You like Darwinism?

Then explain why I don't kill you and take your shit if I think I won't get caught.

Keep explaining.

More.

MOre.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Per Althouse, we know rapist make up our ancestry.

We can conclude along with the proven that Bush's raped better.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Power ravenous.

Power-ravenous.

Poravenous.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Rapaciously ravenous is Biden's touch.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Murder; murder.

It's just a snip away.

Ohh murder, murder.

It's just a suction away.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

What was once now isn't.

tim in vermont said...

discussing tim's evident confusion concerning sea ice versus land ice

You are funny. I guess your citation of Wikipedia put you over the top then, eh? I don't blame you for walking away from a weak argument though.

ken in tx said...

I read about a theory, years ago, that held that the Arctic was open water during the ice ages. Evaporation from there created a perpetual snow machine that caused the glaciers to march when the snow fell on land at lower latitudes.