Slashdot Mirror

It carried on a lot longer than that, according to LIVING HERE.

We can see the temperatures ourselves, moron. Two days. Three if you want to pretend that 28 F is some sort of barn-burning cold. Only four days that didn't go above 32.

It's only a few days after the bomb cyclone we've started actually approaching average temperatures.

Own-goal. March 3rd to March 7th is indeed a "few days" from bomb cyclone to average high temperature. Also, not something that supports your point.

So how do we have more melting that normal with below average tertmpetures?

You misspelled "temperatures." I'd let it slide, but you have a spelling fetish it seems. How do you have more melting? Something about greater snowpack, which you admit, and daytime temperatures routinely above freezing, which we can see for ourselves. But wait, it gets better, because for some reason you want to only talk about Denver.

You can dance around it all you like, but the fact is you and your scientifically, data starved ignorant friends are simply wrong about what is happening now, and you base your forecasts on this fundamentally mistaken view of the world... sad.

You're appearing to confuse Denver with the predicted flooding areas, and then the world.

You can't locate Denver on a map. SAD. The rest of us can. It's in one of those square states full of white.

You misspelled decreasing. Just like a climate alarmists to confuse weather for climate.

No, I really didn't.

Pretty telling that I am the only one providing real data while you try to spread fear and panic by totally ignoring what the weather is actually doing.

You can't click on a hyperlink to NWS temperatures? SAD.
You should try clicking on these links. But you won't. SAD.
You think that I have the sole responsibility to provide "real data" that is being published constantly yet you actively ignore? SAD.

I'll let you have the last response, since at this point everyone is onto your game of deception... everyone except for you it would seem.

You won't. You'll come back and post some nonsense, including that fact that "everyone" (except for every single reply to your post) agrees with your delusional position.

You have record cold Niagara falls is frozen https://www.accuweather.com/en...

Very first paragraph: "It's that time of year when the Niagara Falls transform into a majestic winter wonderland. - sure sounds like that's unusual. NOT!

Record Snowfalls https://www.miamiherald.com/la...

55 years - for that day. Of course the temperature was actually above average for that day, too. Warmer, with more precipitation - gee, what does that sound like?

Power outages in Europe from the snow https://www.express.co.uk/news...

Funny how the BBC video in that article mentions nothing of what the headline claims. Odd, ehh?

Meanwhile we have record heat in Australia, and a sunny 40F in Anchorage, Alaska.

You have record cold
Niagara falls is frozen
https://www.accuweather.com/en...
Record Snowfalls
https://www.miamiherald.com/la...
Power outages in Europe from the snow
https://www.express.co.uk/news...

And they have the balls to scream about global warming meanwhile at the Davos Summit focused on climate change
You have 1500 private jets flying in
https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/...

Sad thing is the crazy people who actually worry about this don't realize they are the butt of a colossal joke and actually get upset when you try to explain it to them.

Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year.

How do they/you square that belief with the report from Accuweather about Climate Change Impacting the Bermuda High, causing it "intensify"?

A short play with a metaphor for how climate discussions will look for the near future:

Person A: "The house is flooding because of the rain pouring in".

Person B:"Think it's because of the hole in the roof?"

Person A:"I can't speculate on that."

Weatherbug was pretty careful not to make the leap that Florence is a result of climate change. They had an article speculating that the reason Florence became so strong is the result of a Bermuda high which is in an unusual position for the year.

How do they/you square that belief with the report from Accuweather about Climate Change Impacting the Bermuda High, causing it "intensify"?

Weather

Climate

So Cold = Weather, Hot = Climate.

That's not Science, that's dogma.

You are wrong, there are new lows, here's from earlier this year:

Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records.

Are you going to adjust your worldview now, or just pretend that didn't happen?

Are you going to compare the same time of records (all time versus daily) or are you going to stoop to new lows? Thanks for proving my point.

And yes there are still new all time time lows - it's just there are several orders of magnitude more new all time highs.

"Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records. The last week of records broken, tied, or approached is shown in this animation"

"Weather is not climate," indeed.

Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records.

Are you going to adjust your worldview now, or just pretend that didn't happen?

"Here are a few maps that illustrate this. Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records. The last week of records broken, tied, or approached is shown in this animation from CoolWx.com"

That is BS. Still can't tell me 100% what the weather is going to like tomorrow. GET REAL!!!

1. Weather is not climate. Climate is a long term average. It is much easier to predict averages than to predict individuals: I can't predict how tall you are, but I can very accurately tell you how tall the average American male is.

2. Actually, we're pretty good at tomorrow's weather. Check https://www.wunderground.com/ or https://www.accuweather.com/ , they're pretty good

You really could have googled that yourself.

I guess as long as there's no hurricane coming through it's kinda nice.

Seems to be a consensus that a delayed El Nino does this: https://www.accuweather.com/en...

Do you know what they do with the left overs after squeezing the ethanol out? They sell the corn mash as animal feed. The real problem has been drought causing ranchers to cull their herds hard. Fewer cattle to supply beef means higher prices for you.

.
However, before air conditioning existed, people had to be creative when trying to stay comfortable in sweltering conditions.

Here are five different ways that people across the United States beat the heat in the 1800s and early 1900s.

You are Fucking Ignorant.

" temperatures plummeted to their lowest levels in decades in some locations of the Northeast at the start of Valentine's Day."

Let's go through that again. Lowest level "in decades" instead of highest ever recorded in over a century. In some places in a relatively small region instead of the whole world. On one day instead of a month.

But if you want to look at Valentine's Day specifically, there were lots of places with record highs (and not just in decades) too. Like Tuscon

You are Fucking Ignorant.

" temperatures plummeted to their lowest levels in decades in some locations of the Northeast at the start of Valentine's Day."

You are Fucking Ignorant.

" temperatures plummeted to their lowest levels in decades in some locations of the Northeast at the start of Valentine's Day."

First I want to be clear - wind is a great supplemental power source in some areas. Having said that ...

> they are spread around national grids so the wind is always blowing on some somewhere.

It would be nice if any of those three things were true. In fact, weather systems are generally larger than most countries. Here's the current weather map for a very large country, the United States:
http://sirocco.accuweather.com...

You'll notice there's very little weather in the US today. Next week, a storm system may cover most of the population of the US.

Regarding "national electric grid" - you may recall a few years ago a blackout left the northeast without power for several days, while the nine other power regional grids including had plenty of power. The California grid had a chronic power shortage for decades, while the neighboring grid for Texas was fine. There are 10 regional power grids in the US. There's no such thing as "the national grid", and can't without save a complete redesign of the technology and replacing billions in infrastructure.

Lastly, wind farms are NOT spread evenly around the country. They are located in specific areas where it makes sense to have them. You need steady, predictable wind (the cube power law means high winds destroy them), near population centers, but with cheap real estate. The last two requirements are of course contradictory, so a limited number of locations fit all of the criteria.

In those places where it DOES make sense, wind power allows producers to reduce fuel usage on the natural gas generators whenever the wind happens to be right, and that's a good thing.

It's way too hot.

the weather in michigan...

The cost of recycling can be brought down by starting with lower-mineral sources. Those that drink beer produce nearly clear output after the first one. By tapping frat house urinals less processing is required. Effective efficiency is best if the beer comes from outside the drought area.

The water lost in toilets might be reduced if they were some sort of chemical toilet, but they also need to be designed using negative pressure or something to keep odors from being released. Nobody wants a stinky one.

Changing food crops could certainly help, but I doubt people would be very happy replacing strawberries with lima beans. It might be too expensive, but maybe greenhouse production of strawberries would be much more efficient with reduced evaporation, and possibly avoiding loss into the ground. Water that goes down to the water table isn't really waste though.

Considering that much well, river, and lake water that is used ends up in the ocean, desal does have the potential advantage of a shift the other direction.

Although the large amount of water used in fracking and newer uranium mining methods pales compared to agriculture, the contamination left behind by both is a serious issue. It's very short-sighted to assume that there won't be leakage, or that water at a particular depth will never be wanted.

The issue of land sinking shouldn't be ignored. It's s so bad in central California that plans for a project to sustain fish had to be dropped because subsidence made the ground too unstable to support the related concrete. Rapid water loss round the Dead Sea in the Middle East has resulted in one popular beach areas being closed due to danger from a large number of sink holes forming.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/...

As real as CO2 and methane issues are, we should also remember to be open minded enough to research other factors affecting weather.

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

No need for ice breakers on the great lakes? Apparently you didn't get the memo that the great lakes almost completely froze over last year. http://www.accuweather.com/en/...

The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.

I suggest you look this up it has been reported a million times or more. There are so many other examples, and Google works really well, no reason to belabor this point.

You say this year has been the hottest on record. I don't doubt that your intentions are good. Please google "hot records .vs. cold records". Here is the first link you find.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/...

You can see the dire predictions of the "experts" at the IPCC mapped against what really happened.

Which is, Sir, my point. Making dire predictions - so called Climate Alarmism - has done major damage to climate science. So has the tactic of attacking anyone who dares question the myth of the dire prediction. Both of these actions harm your cause.

I couldn't find the graphs from NOAA showing how they stopped showing cold records - but there are many, many examples of climate data being faked ever since climate alarmism started. I understand greed - I'm a business man - but greed mixed with the scientific method is a crime against humanity. All these myths have been created about science, the scientific method, how science is actually done... These myths take society backwards, not forward. That's my point.

Tornadoes seem to be MIA also.

In weather jargon, "watch" means that the event has been actually been seen and reported somewhere. A "warning" means that conditions are right for an event to happen, but it hasn't yet been actually reported.

The irony is, you have it completely backwards. From AccuWeather (and any other source):

"Watches, like severe thunderstorm watches and tornado watches, which are two of the most common types, are issued when weather conditions are conducive for the event to occur,"

"Warnings are different. A warning is issued when the weather event is happening now," Pigott said. "In terms of flooding, for instance, a flood warning means a river has spilled over or flash flooding is occurring."

"Basically, a watch means atmospheric conditions are right for it to happen. Warnings mean it's actually happening," Pigott said.

This says something different. 2013 was the driest year on record. I think that meets the definition of drought.

I posted about this on my G+ feed a while back; at some point, we went from being told about Global Warming to being warned about Climate Change.

The reason for that is that people equate "Global Warming" with "hot summers". That's bogus. The greenhouse effect isn't about direct sunlight; it prevents heat from escaping; therefore it affects low temperatures more than it affects high temperatures, and it affects winter more than it affects summer. The Arctic and Antarctic are the places that are changing the most drastically, and that's far removed from your average Joe's day to day "ermigahrd its sooo hot" experience.

But warming the poles more than the temperate latitudes evens out the temperature difference between them, and that has huge consequences from a weather standpoint. Temperature differences drive the jet streams; a polar jet stream is a 100mph~200mph river of air that circles the planet 5 miles up, and if you live in a temperate latitude (e.g. the US, Europe, China, south Australia) then a polar jet streams is responsible for everything nice about your weather. A polar jet stream blocks cold dry air from plunging equatorward (and warm moist air from surging poleward), and it also shepherds weather systems from west to east, forcing them to keep moving. Without a jet stream, weather would just sit in place for weeks or months at a time, causing droughts or flooding depending on whether a high pressure system or a low pressure system decided to set up shop over your head. (Either possibility is a disaster for agriculture and local ecology.) But thanks to CO2-induced polar warming, the jet streams have been creeping equatorward a little bit each year and they've been weakening. With weaker jet streams, we can expect things like polar vortex plunges and balmy temperatures in Alaska and 15%-of-normal-rainfall droughts in California and 115 F heat waves in Australia to become regular occurrences. (These things are all happening right now, if you haven't been paying attention, and they're all a consequence of polar jet stream shenanigans, which are getting more common and more extreme as of late.)

Like the jet streams, ocean currents are also driven by temperature differences, so ocean currents will eventually start to shift if polar warming continues. That will have far-reaching consequences, because ocean currents determine evaporation rates and thus where precipitation falls, but ocean current changes are very hard to predict because we have so little data to work from. This hasn't really affected us yet, but the El Niño vs La Niña dichotomy (drought vs flooding; where you live determines which one brings which) gives a small taste of how much power the ocean has over the weather (and how big the effect will be once we do get our first permanent ocean current shifts). That awful The Day After Tomorrow film was mostly made of bogus-science-from-hell, but it was very loosely based on a real-world hypothesis that freshwater glacial melt could disrupt the thermohaline circulation that powers the Gulf Stream, the ocean current that keeps the UK and northern Europe warm. (The UK is at the same latitude as the Gulf of Alaska, suggesting it would be as cold as Alaska if the Gulf Stream were disrupted. The Gulf Stream

I was just as underwhelmed as you when I heard "coldest temperatures since... 1995!"

That said, last summer was particularly hot:

* Historical Heat Wave Expanding Across the West (June 2013)
* Death Valley Heat Breaks All-Time US June Record
* Heat Wave July 2013
* What’s Behind the Heat Wave

And in December, we did see dramatic weather extremes:

* The temperature in New York's Central Park topped out at 71 degrees on Sunday, breaking a 1998 record of 63 degrees
* The temperature had reached 65 degrees in Central Park on Saturday, breaking a 2011 record of 62 degrees.
* Temperatures in Philadelphia reached a record 68 degrees on Sunday.
* In Washington D.C., the temperature was hovering "about 40 degrees warmer than normal,"
* New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine were pummeled by an ice storm
* In Nelson County, Kentucky, three drowning victims were pulled from a submerged vehicle
* A tornado touched down in the city of Redfield, Arkansas
* Widespread damage from the storm system was also reported near Dermott, Arkansas ... "We are thinking it was a tornado,"

Tornadoes in December?

Peak tornado season in the southern states is March through May; in the northern states, it is late spring through early summer.

Just two weeks later, it's a cold snap: Chicago already broke it's record low -- more to follow.

I was just as underwhelmed as you when I heard "coldest temperatures since... 1995!"

That said, last summer was particularly hot:

* Historical Heat Wave Expanding Across the West (June 2013)
* Death Valley Heat Breaks All-Time US June Record
* Heat Wave July 2013
* What’s Behind the Heat Wave

And in December, we did see dramatic weather extremes:

* The temperature in New York's Central Park topped out at 71 degrees on Sunday, breaking a 1998 record of 63 degrees
* The temperature had reached 65 degrees in Central Park on Saturday, breaking a 2011 record of 62 degrees.
* Temperatures in Philadelphia reached a record 68 degrees on Sunday.
* In Washington D.C., the temperature was hovering "about 40 degrees warmer than normal,"
* New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine were pummeled by an ice storm
* In Nelson County, Kentucky, three drowning victims were pulled from a submerged vehicle
* A tornado touched down in the city of Redfield, Arkansas
* Widespread damage from the storm system was also reported near Dermott, Arkansas ... "We are thinking it was a tornado,"

Tornadoes in December?

Peak tornado season in the southern states is March through May; in the northern states, it is late spring through early summer.

Just two weeks later, it's a cold snap: Chicago already broke it's record low -- more to follow.

FAA has a requirement that will be coming up for virtually all aircraft called ADS-B. It's basically a self-imposed tracking system that broadcasts your position in all three axes and your ground speed. It's in an unencrypted form so that any aircraft in flight can receive positions from nearby aircraft. My guess is the FAA will mandate that the drones be so equipped.

Another observation: Here in Texas where there a pockets of huge populations of Mexican free tail bats, there is an interesting thing that happens when they emerge to forage on insects. They all stream out following each other in a main column (that can actually be seen on radar) and then branch out sort of resembling a tree. It would probably make sense for package distribution to follow a similar model where the route is not a straight line but a predictable route. Outgoing drones flow along in a pre-set column and incoming drones flow along in another distinct column. Bats on radar

BTM

No tornadoes here either. (Ohio Valley, Central Ohio). We don't get any natural disasters... I guess God figures that living in Ohio is punishment enough.

Are you sure?

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/tornadoes-wreak-havoc-in-the-o/62353

Destructive storms tore through the Ohio Valley Friday producing numerous large and devastating tornadoes and carving a path of destruction that left dozens of people dead.
There was a total of 107 tornado reports across 11 states on Friday. At least 39 people were killed by the massive tornado outbreak.

And don't forget about the floods:

http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/1913Flood/awareness/materials/TalkingPoints1913.pdf

Heavy rainfall, equivalent to two to three months
worth, fell across the Ohio Valley between March
23 and March 27th of 1913. The resulting runoff
produced cataclysmic floods and damages never
before seen over such a large area extending
from Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,
New York, and later communities along the Mississippi River

Maybe that was just a freak 100 year storm.... but it was 100 years ago.

Somewhat the sun was hit by an "unnamed" comet, and then the Sun is sending an eruption right into our direction, as it was a connection between those events. Is not uncommon that the sun is hit by comets. Unless this one had a core of exotic matter or was a disguised photon torpedo should be no relation between those events..

In the last 15 years 12 of the them have broken records for heat. How is that not a lick of warming?

The planet is the warmest it has ever been in human history. That is normal and expected, given the fact we're currently in a warming cycle (even without's man's influence). So we're already sitting at the very top of "mankind's historical temperature records". By normal weather variation, 7.5 of those 15 years are going to be "historical records". Secondly, it's the rate of warming that is more important than "is any warming occuring?". Scientisits dictate that "more CO2 == faster rate of warming".

Exactly how is the historical record in any way not confirming global warming?

Because historically we've seen similar rises and falls in temperature when mankind wasn't even around. Climate scientists try to use the rapid climb in temperature from 1950 - 2000 as a sign of "abnormality", because clearly the change would have been "slower and more deliberate" if the evilness of man did not intrude. But when you ask why this rapid rise in the rate of heating did not continue in the past 15 years where CO2 has still been spiking, they're fast to search for boogey men and fudge factors to attribute it to. Global CO2 emissions today are 30% higher than they were in 2000 (even higher than was predicted by the IPCC). Yet where's the accompanied climb in the rate of warming? The opposite has actually occurred...the rate of warming has slowed: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warmed-much-for-the-past-decade-15788
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/what-caused-global-warming-to/7173667

You can claim it's being sinked in the ocean, or counterbalanced by aerosols, leprechauns, or fairies, but you can't pretend the last 15 years doesn't throw a wrench into the "effect of manmade CO2" claims of the IPCC.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/can-ants-predict-when-an-earth/10211815 as well.

I'm the biggest atheist you'll ever meet, but I'm still very much interested in what goes through the Vatican people's heads - a major mass-delusion involving over a billion people inevitably has some definite geopolitical and economic implications... As far as religions go, I tend to judge them by their aggregate voting patterns, with much respect going to the Mormons and certain Protestant sects. (Hey, not everyone has the brains to be a rationalist...) I'm also very much aware of how certain religions have historically sabotaged economic and technological growth, with Protestants in Northern Europe (especially the Netherlands and England) deserving much credit for the foundations of capitalism, independent science, the Industrial Revolution, and the modern world as we know it today.

When I first heard about that silly "Prophecy of the Popes" ~15 years ago, I wondered... What are the odds of them just choosing someone named Peter when the time comes (the first Peter in 2000 years, supposedly), and whether having this name would increase or decrease his chances of being selected pope... And now here we are, at the end of the list, with the leading candidate's birth name being Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson... Seems like "the scriptwriters" are trying to use this "prophecy" boost their show's ratings!

And then there's another "coincidence" - lightning striking the Vatican dome hours after the resignation announcement... (Very easy to fake, of course, by timing the Pope's announcement to take place on the same day as a thunderstorm, and then putting out a previously-unpublished photo of it happening before...)

It was funny to watch at first, sorta like scripted wrestling, but when I looked at Peter Turkson's political views - my blood turned to antifreeze! I don't care about the same ol social conservative bullshit that not even Catholics take seriously anymore (the fertility rates in Catholic Europe are among the lowest in the world), but look at his calls for a Global Tax and a Global Socialist Government! He's exactly the kind of Pope the government elites want, and it looks like they're ready to use the Vatican as a propaganda weapon, more intensively than in a very long time!

There were many reasons to dislike Catholics in the past, but Peter Turkson is the icing on the cake!

--libman

There have been some pretty impressive dust storms in Texas lately too.

An update has been posted with a response from the The Met office explaining the data selection method. It is not a conspiracy/mistake. The data is a well-spaced global set, not a regional set. Analysis on a regional basis is flawed.

That inconsistency is part of the trouble with the awesome bar. I don't go to Accuweather too often, but I've been there in the last couple of weeks. If I type in 'ac' or 'www.ac', my options are, in order:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=662909&page=2
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=userinfo&user=
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/10/07/new-software-adjusts-actors-body-shapes-automatically/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Neatorama+(Neatorama)
https://chaseonline.chase.com/MyAccounts.aspx
http://www.accuweather.com/
http://www.lenovo.com/us/en/#ss

I find this asinine, but some people like it. That's fine. Give me the option to have something sane and consistent. As someone else mentioned elsewhere, if they would just put the items with exact matches at the beginning of the domain first on the list (or give the option for it), it would help a lot. Then they'd just have to work on how slow it is.

The post I ripped off says nothing of the sort.

Maybe you should have ripped off a post that said what you thought it said. I just see some condescending crap that doesn't get the fundamental problem. Why should government provide this stuff and who's going to pay for it? Do you really need government to keep you from hearing naughty words on TV or radio? Or to provide cheap, "clean" water or electricity for you? Let's keep in mind that often government doesn't do these well either. I imagine that might be the source of the "government can't do anything" strawman that you seem really concerned over.

Instead, I see the problem as being that government does too many things. A typical flawed approach is that government provides something for free, creating a public good at someone's expense. Then it has to create and enforce regulations to keep people from overconsuming the public good. So you have the two common flaws of a democratic government, a poorly supervised and understood transfer of wealth, often with bizarre unintended consequences, combined with an increase in government power and loss of personal freedom required to regulate the consumption of the public good.

"Overreach" is an irrelevant tangent you're introducing.

And I "introduced" it again twice. That's because I don't agree.

Well, these guys claim their models are better than NOAAs.

Accuweather only exists because NOAA doesn't do pretty graphics and a variety of other things. They do what the NOAA doesn't.

Quick! Somebody tell FedEx, UPS and DHL that they do not exist. In addition, the USPS is privately funded now. The author I ripped off probably shouldn't have included it because of that.

All those companies can't legally compete with USPS's core business. The USPS remains a publicly funded government organization. Sometimes it runs a slight profit. It doesn't suddenly become "privately funded" because of the government-enforced monopoly and the ready access to public funds in the years when it doesn't turn a profit.

Bottom line is that because government controls things we find valuable, then we shouldn't complain about government overreach.

The post I ripped off says nothing of the sort. Folks on the right say "Government can't do anything". They say this because they don't notice or think about all the stuff government actually does do. See: Multiple people during the 'healthcare protests' screaming "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!!" (for non-USAians, Medicare is government-run health insurance for people 65+, has been around since the 1960's)

"Overreach" is an irrelevant tangent you're introducing.

For example. why should I start my own competition to the NOAA, to provide for a cost, something which the NOAA provides for free?

Well, these guys claim their models are better than NOAAs.

such as duplicating the services of the US Postal Service

Quick! Somebody tell FedEx, UPS and DHL that they do not exist. In addition, the USPS is privately funded now. The author I ripped off probably shouldn't have included it because of that.

Actually, that's necessarily true. It depends on how you define warm.

If the average temperature in January is usually 30 degrees, and the temperature rises to 31 degrees, then it is warmer than average, but can still snow. In this case, it is not the temperature that determines how much snowfall you get - it is the amount of water vapor in the air.

I live in the Northeast US, and the temperatures this year were about average. In my Baltimore, it was 1.4 degrees colder than average. The record highs and lows are +/- 40 degrees from the average. That puts us well within standard deviation. So temperature variation did not cause the snowstorm. It was an increase in precipitation, not temperature. Which is exactly what global warming predicts.

Now, is this one data point sufficient to prove global warming? No. But it does support it.

Source: Baltimore weather for January 2010

Or maybe you could step back and realize that no GCM predicts monotonic warming, that there's a difference between local weather and the global climate, and that reading crackpot websites isn't a substitute for a graduate education in climate physics?

So when you say local weather, do you mean like, the northern hemisphere? I ask because that's the half that's in winter now and is what I was referring to. You don't need a graduate education in geology to know that.

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
Britain braced for heaviest snowfall in 50-years...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...

enjoying this Global Warming? It can't be much fun attending a Global Warming riot whilst hip-deep in snow!

http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?partner=&traveler=0&date=2010-01-04_1701&month=1&year=2010

If cities would allow no-holds-bared competition, every city would end up looking as if it were overrun by a herd of rabid gophers. It is simply not feasible to have 20 companies run wires/fibre/what-not all over the place.

You mean like these: 1, 2, 3, or 4? Or these: 5, 6? Darn, I wish I had those links, last week another /.er posted links to city views with a bunch more cables.

A saner idea, which some cities have implemented, is to place a whole network of city-owned conduits (essentially weather-proof empty pipes) which then can be leased for a nominal fee by anyone who wishes to run a fibre or some other wiring through them to a customer. Probably even more efficient would be for a city to run optical fibre to all households and simply lease that fiber to whatever competing businesses the residents wishes to be connected to.

It is better than what we have now. A Broadband Utopia does like you say, run fiber to homes and businesses then leases access. Here's the link to TFA.

Falcon

There's lots of data summarized here: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/04/arctic_sea_ice_is_unusually_th_1.html

Ice has been thicker in 2008 than 2007, but you get upticks in downtrends, so who knows.

Apple ads have been full of "hyperbole" since the sledgehammer hit Big Blue Brother in the face.

Perhaps the "best" hyperbole was Goldblum's chuckling saying "There is no step #3" (to connect to the Internet on a fruity-colored iMac. Of course there was... you had to do the Assistant, you had to have an ISP or something, blah blah blah. But they made their point. Getting a PC on the internet involved things we have forgotten we had to care about. Like having Win95 Rev B! Setting properties for "Client for Microsoft Networks", things I wouldn't want to have to explain to my sister over the phone.

The Apple ads use hyperbole to point out the contrast between their world and the PC World and rubbing the shortcomings in the viewers face, and now, the Mobile Phone world.

Case in point... Last year, I had to replace my phone. I'm not too demanding of a phone, but it had to be able to read a radar weather map off the web. This one would be nice: http://sirocco.accuweather.com/nx_mosaic_400x300c/SIR/inmSIRSD_.gif IT COULDN'T!!! The browser couldn't read a GIF FILE!!! :-O I took the phone back to the store and told them to stuff it. No other feature of the phone could redeem that failure.

The Apple ads rub that failure in my face. Ok, it can't read FLASH. How will I EVER get my house refinanced without FLASH!?!?!

In consequence, it is non-predictable (the only way to know the result is to actually go through each and every step, of which there are an infinite number and each of which requires infinite precision) but wholly deterministic (there are no random elements, if the entire system was reset exactly to an infinite degree of precision to a given state, then it would produce identical results).

Again, you're getting stuck on the meaning of predictability. To give a very simple example, drawing from the most familiar chaotic system, go to this website, type in your zip code. You will get statements about the future weather. These are predictions. Are they perfect? Certainly no, but the are, nonetheless, bonafide predictions.

What you are asking for is an EXACT solution to such a problem, which I agree would take a infinite number of steps if solving numerically. But this is not required for a prediction. In fact, this is only possible in systems for which an analytic solutions exists (which is very rare in practice, trust me). Scientists and engineers use computers to calculate numerical solutions all the time. The most general requirement for a system to be chaotic is that it be described by at least 3 nonlinear coupled differential equations. Given such a system, numerically evolving those equations is usually quite easy. Of course, the results will not be true for an arbitrary number of iterations, but the short-time behavior will be accurate [enough].

The point is, chaotic systems are calculable. You want 0.1% accuracy t units of time? Fine, you can calculate that. The limiting factor is in knowledge of the initial conditions.

Here is the link btw:
Accuweather

Natural variability allowed excessive dust from Africa and the el niño effect to kill the ability of hurricanes to grow this year. Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming.
If they could not predict the dust and el niño effects over a period of less than a year, why should I respect their predictions 10 years out?

What about the 2005 hurricane season? It was also global warming that caused that.
Oh was it? You mean that global warming snuck up on us all last year? Why wasn't 2004 worse than 2003 which was worse than 2002 and so on? So I guess next year, if we don't have el niño and African dust, is it going to be another bumper year for hurricanes, increasing every year until we have hurricanes in Idaho? If we are talking about "Global Warming" here, why was 2005 an average year for hurricane's globally? (yes, it was a bad year in N. America, but average world-wide).

You telling me you know what caused last year's hurricane season is about as ridiculous as some preacher saying that it was caused because God was mad at the US policy toward homosexuals.

The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.

Aren't these the same climate scientist that said we were going to have a record hurricane season this year. What was the number I read? "One in Six Americans Could be Directly Impacted by 2006 Hurricane Season " But we are supposed to believe them when they say that the film is 99% correct on long term forecasts when they can't tell me if it is going to rain today or not.

Yeah, these guys may be the top of their field, but being on top of a bunch of people who don't know crap doesn't say much.