 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / February 2007Global Warming hits Parish, NY
This is enough to keep the neighborhood pushers in business for awhile... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/02/10/national/a163410S 84.DTL FMB (North Mexico) > This is enough to keep the neighborhood pushers in business for > awhile... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > FMB > (North Mexico) Damn, that's a lot even by lake effect standards. >> This is enough to keep the neighborhood pushers in business for >> awhile... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Damn, that's a lot even by lake effect standards. Just think how much snow they would have if we didnt have GLOBAL WARMING??? > >> This is enough to keep the neighborhood pushers in business for > >> awhile... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Just think how much snow they would have if we didnt have GLOBAL WARMING??? Probably none as Global Warming prevented the lakes from freezing over and that is what is causing so much damn snow now.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Probably none as Global Warming prevented the lakes from freezing over and > that is what is causing so much damn snow now. Bull. The areas getting all the snow aren't all from lake effect which is a rather localized event. Which lakes exactly are you referring too here? Lake Ontario - it *IS* Lake effect. geesh! > Lake Ontario - it *IS* Lake effect. geesh! The heavy snows are not limited to the downwind lake vicinity. Try again. >> Lake Ontario - it *IS* Lake effect. geesh! > > The heavy snows are not limited to the downwind lake vicinity. Try > again. U R a dunce! > Lake Ontario - it *IS* Lake effect. geesh! The last time Lake Ontario froze was 1976 and before that was 1934. TBone's claim of Global Warming causing lake effect snow because of lack of freezing on Lake Ontario is pure BS. > > Lake Ontario - it *IS* Lake effect. geesh! > > The last time Lake Ontario froze was 1976 and before that was 1934. > TBone's claim of Global Warming causing lake effect snow because of lack > of freezing on Lake Ontario is pure BS. You are correct Miles, it doesn't normally freeze but by this time of the year the water is usually damn cold and gives off little humidity. This year, due to the global warming that you stupidly refuse to believe exists, the water is still piss warm and is dumping tons of humidity into these storms. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > You are correct Miles, it doesn't normally freeze but by this time of the > year the water is usually damn cold and gives off little humidity. This > year, due to the global warming that you stupidly refuse to believe exists, > the water is still piss warm and is dumping tons of humidity into these > storms. The NOAA and DOA stats do not back up your claims. They both show Lake Ontario surface temps to be about average. They were slightly above average in the fall and below average last spring and early summer. Go ahead, take a look for yourself since you failed to do so prior to making this statement. Just like you should have looked up whether it even freezes over before making your prior claim of such. > > You are correct Miles, it doesn't normally freeze but by this time of the > > year the water is usually damn cold and gives off little humidity. This [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The NOAA and DOA stats do not back up your claims. Actually Miles, yes they do. > They both show Lake > Ontario surface temps to be about average. They were slightly above > average in the fall and below average last spring and early summer. LOL, how is that even possible? Where are they taking those temps that you are referring to from and are they "about average" in relation to the current temps?? I don't think so. How is it possible that they were above average in the fall and now magically "about average" now??? The truth is that the temp were above average in the fall and are now still above average in relation to the current temps in the region and that is causing the lake to supply WAY more moisture to these storms then it normally would resulting in record lake effect snows. Any way you want to spin it Miles, you are wrong. > Go ahead, take a look for yourself since you failed to do so prior to > making this statement. Just like you should have looked up whether it > even freezes over before making your prior claim of such. LOL, are you really this desperate Miles??? I guess so. Actually, what was said by the experts that if the lake was at its normal temps during the season, it WOULD HAVE FROZEN OVER with these very low temps in the area now and would not be able to dump this much moisture in the air causing these HUGE LAKE EFFECT SNOW STORMS. Go look it up. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > "miles" <nope@nopers.com> wrote in message >> The NOAA and DOA stats do not back up your claims. > > Actually Miles, yes they do. That means you didn't bother looking. The surface temps are currently about 33-34F, right where they typically are. NOAA is currently showing Jan/Feb temps right about average. > LOL, how is that even possible? Where are they taking those temps that you > are referring to from and are they "about average" in relation to the > current temps?? Ahh, now you've proven that you did not even take a look at NOAA's or DOA's website. If you had you would see exactly where all of the temperature sensors are located. > I don't think so. How is it possible that they were above > average in the fall and now magically "about average" now??? Um, TBone, the average temperature for a given day of the year varies. Average temp in the summer is higher than it is in the winter. Or didn't you know that it's usually colder in the winter months than summer? What have you been smoking?? Too funny. > The truth is > that the temp were above average in the fall and are now still above average NOAA's stats for 2006/2007 show otherwise. You haven't even looked have you? You're just arguing aren't ya!! Theres some dang funny stuff right there!! > LOL, are you really this desperate Miles??? I guess so. Actually, what was > said by the experts that if the lake was at its normal temps during the > season, it WOULD HAVE FROZEN OVER Experts huh? It has frozen over only twice in the last 100 years and only very briefly. The current temps match the average. I'd rather take NOAA's recorded temps than your politically motivated BS. >> Probably none as Global Warming prevented the lakes from freezing over >> and >> that is what is causing so much damn snow now. > > Bull. The areas getting all the snow aren't all from lake effect which is > a rather localized event. Which lakes exactly are you referring too here? Miles, he is not wrong. They are getting the lake effect snows from Lake Ontario, which does not freeze over, like Lake Erie does. FYI Erie has just recently froze over in late Jan, which is extremely odd for being so late a freeze. > Miles, he is not wrong. They are getting the lake effect snows from Lake > Ontario, which does not freeze over, like Lake Erie does. FYI Erie has just > recently froze over in late Jan, which is extremely odd for being so late a > freeze. I realize that but the severe winter conditions are not isolated to just that one area. My response was to the claims regarding Global Warming causing the severe winters. As you pointed out Ontario doesn't freeze over anyways. The lack of ice coverage isn't because of Global Warming as TBone tried to claim. Talk to people in plain states and rocky mountain states! Many areas have been hit hard with both heavy snows and frigid temps. >> Miles, he is not wrong. They are getting the lake effect snows from Lake >> Ontario, which does not freeze over, like Lake Erie does. FYI Erie has [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Talk to people in plain states and rocky mountain states! Many areas have > been hit hard with both heavy snows and frigid temps. You are correct about the heavy snow and frigid temps, in the plains states and other areas. However, being someone that lived most of his life in an area constantly hit by lake effect snows, including the Blizzard of 77, all the snow that is hitting the Lake Oswego area of Western/Upstate NY is ALL due to lake effect storms. Just because it is not localized to areas directly on the lake, does not mean it is not lake effect. Besides, as the topic reads, the thread is about NY not the plains. So their weather really has little bearing or relevance. > Besides, as the topic reads, the thread is about NY not the plains. So > their weather really has little bearing or relevance. Thats true but the lack of ice on lake Ontario because of global warming isn't the cause for the lake effect snow in NY. >> Besides, as the topic reads, the thread is about NY not the plains. So >> their weather really has little bearing or relevance. > > Thats true but the lack of ice on lake Ontario because of global warming > isn't the cause for the lake effect snow in NY. You are correct. Being that Lake O almost never freezes, G.W. has no bearing on things. Now, to say that Lake E has taken so long to freeze could be related to G.W. >>> Besides, as the topic reads, the thread is about NY not the plains. So >>> their weather really has little bearing or relevance. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bearing on things. Now, to say that Lake E has taken so long to freeze > could be related to G.W. Posted without comment http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece Mike > Posted without comment > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece It bugs me when science gets "polluted" by politics. There apparently are some meteorologists who now want to decertify weathermen (from AMS professional membership) that don't buy in to human caused global warming science. It seems I now have to quote "science" because we can't be certain how much of what it says is science and how much is politics. Nothing new; been that way for centuries. Still annoying. SMH > There apparently are some meteorologists who now want to > decertify weathermen (from AMS professional membership) that > don't buy in to human caused global warming science. Kinda reminds you of the time when people wanted to kill those who said the Earth wasn't the center of the universe >>There apparently are some meteorologists who now want to >>decertify weathermen (from AMS professional membership) that >>don't buy in to human caused global warming science. > > Kinda reminds you of the time when people wanted to kill those who said the > Earth wasn't the center of the universe Funny, I was thinking of Galileo when I wrote that! Some things never change. SMH >>>There apparently are some meteorologists who now want to >>>decertify weathermen (from AMS professional membership) that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > SMH What I find amusing tho' is that our friends on the left are wanting to stifle debate on the subject. Aren't they always the ones who bitch the loudest about inclusion, etc.? 'Guess that only applies if you agree with 'em. ;^) Mike >> There apparently are some meteorologists who now want to >> decertify weathermen (from AMS professional membership) that >> don't buy in to human caused global warming science. > >Kinda reminds you of the time when people wanted to kill those who said the >Earth wasn't the center of the universe I didn't know you were that old Tom. beekeep >> Besides, as the topic reads, the thread is about NY not the plains. So >> their weather really has little bearing or relevance. > > Thats true but the lack of ice on lake Ontario because of global warming > isn't the cause for the lake effect snow in NY. GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is lake effect snow EVERY year. Stop picking apart each and every little word. geesh! > GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > There is lake effect snow EVERY year. No that is not true. There have been numerous years where Western/Upstate NY has not seen a lake effect storm. Oh, as I am sure you will want to prove me wrong, for your edification, I was born and raised in Buffalo, my entire family still resides there, my son and biotch of an ex-wife still reside there, and I am there just about every year for the holidays. >Stop picking apart each and every little word. > geesh! Stop being so damn sensitive! > > Besides, as the topic reads, the thread is about NY not the plains. So > > their weather really has little bearing or relevance. > > Thats true but the lack of ice on lake Ontario because of global warming > isn't the cause for the lake effect snow in NY. Face it Miles, your wrong. Get over it. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Face it Miles, your wrong. Get over it. No TBone. It is you who were proven wrong. You tried to claim the lack of ice is why its been snowing. When you realized you were wrong you then claimed warmer water temps. How about looking some of this info up before you make more bonehead claims. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > Face it Miles, your wrong. Get over it. > > No TBone. It is you who were proven wrong. Really, how???? Were you not the one making the claim that it was not lake effect snow and then proceded to back peddale like a bat out of hell when proven wrong, LOL. > You tried to claim the lack of ice is why its been snowing. It was in fact the lack of ice that caused it. With the current air temps over the lake, it should have frozen over but didn't because it is above temp due to global warming and these claims are comming from national weather forcasters, not my ideas. > > Miles, he is not wrong. They are getting the lake effect snows from Lake > > Ontario, which does not freeze over, like Lake Erie does. FYI Erie has just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > over anyways. The lack of ice coverage isn't because of Global Warming > as TBone tried to claim. No, but record warm water temps for this time of year are and warm water releases far more humidity into the air than cold water. Could you back peddal any faster. > Talk to people in plain states and rocky mountain states! Many areas > have been hit hard with both heavy snows and frigid temps. Really??? Please list all of the areas dealing with 9 feet of snow. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > No, but record warm water temps for this time of year are and warm water > releases far more humidity into the air than cold water. Could you back > peddal any faster. NOAA and DOA readings show 33-34F which is about the statistical average. Any colder and it would be frozen which it rarely does. > Really??? Please list all of the areas dealing with 9 feet of snow. Colorado for starters. They have a huge lake that didn't freeze over because of global warming as well? > > No, but record warm water temps for this time of year are and warm water > > releases far more humidity into the air than cold water. Could you back > > peddal any faster. > > NOAA and DOA readings show 33-34F which is about the statistical > average. Any colder and it would be frozen which it rarely does. Statistical average, hahahahahahahahahahahaha, more right wing bullshit half truths. Those statistics are meaningless unless associated with the air temps at the time but you knew that, right??? > > Really??? Please list all of the areas dealing with 9 feet of snow. > > Colorado for starters. They have a huge lake that didn't freeze over > because of global warming as well? And how much more snow did they get? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Statistical average, hahahahahahahahahahahaha, more right wing bullshit half > truths. Those statistics are meaningless unless associated with the air > temps at the time but you knew that, right??? Temperatures are fairly repeatable from year to year but you already knew that right? Oh wait, no you didn't since you failed to look at NOAA's recorded readings. Now you claim they are meaningless anyways. Good grief do you run all over the place!! The variance is very low. Lake Erie is quite another story where temps vary widely from year to year. You do know why that is right? > And how much more snow did they get? You eastern flatlanders have no clue as to what a heavy snowfall is. 9 feet is a lot for a couple day period but is quite common in California, Colorado and elsewhere in the west. No big deal. > > Statistical average, hahahahahahahahahahahaha, more right wing bullshit half > > truths. Those statistics are meaningless unless associated with the air > > temps at the time but you knew that, right??? > > Temperatures are fairly repeatable from year to year but you already > knew that right? Which is the first bit of evidence that things are changing. Did you look at the air temp readings in relation to the water temp readings over time? Did you look at the air temp readings for the few times that it did freeze over? > Oh wait, no you didn't since you failed to look at > NOAA's recorded readings. Data taken out of contex or data missing key pieces is worthless but you knew that, right???? > Now you claim they are meaningless anyways. That's not what I said but I am used to your lame spin. What I said was that the data is meaningless unless ALL of the revelant data is taken into account which as usual, you didn't do. > Good grief do you run all over the place!! The variance is very low. What variance Miles???? The water temp or the air temp or both??? > Lake Erie is quite another story where temps vary widely from year to > year. You do know why that is right? What exactly does that have to do with this? Oh, that's right, not a damn thing. > > And how much more snow did they get? > > You eastern flatlanders have no clue as to what a heavy snowfall is. 9 > feet is a lot for a couple day period but is quite common in California, > Colorado and elsewhere in the west. No big deal. Once again, you resort to meaningless data and smoke and mirrors. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> You eastern flatlanders have no clue as to what a heavy snowfall is. 9 >> feet is a lot for a couple day period but is quite common in California, >> Colorado and elsewhere in the west. No big deal. Hey there bubba, I resent that! I am one of those "eastern flatlanders" and I can tell you that 110" + over the course of a week is a lot of damn snow,ANY where. Hell it might have just set a new Guinness Record. What you don't know (obviously) is that over the course of a typical Western/Upstate NY winter, specifically around Lake O where it does not freeze over, to have that much snow over the course of the winter is NOT uncommon. Let me go back a few years to 01-02 when Buffalo got 84" over a 36 (IIRC) hour period, want pictures? I would like to see your proof as to where in Cali or Colo that they get 9' of snow? Don't say in the mountains because if you do, you are comparing apples to Dolly Parton, because now you would be throwing in a variable that would be IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate. > I would like to see your proof as to where in Cali or Colo that they get 9' > of snow? Don't say in the mountains because if you do, you are comparing > apples to Dolly Parton, because now you would be throwing in a variable that > would be IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate. So it has to be low lying cities only or the heavy snows don't count? Almost all of the cities that get snow in CA or CO ARE in the mountains. It doesn't snow much in the deserts! Ok, compare the eastern mountain towns. No comparison to the west there either. Hell, even Flagstaff, AZ. averages more snow than Buffalo, NY. > > I would like to see your proof as to where in Cali or Colo that they get 9' > > of snow? Don't say in the mountains because if you do, you are comparing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > towns. No comparison to the west there either. Hell, even Flagstaff, > AZ. averages more snow than Buffalo, NY. First, I doubt seriously that Flagstaff averages more sound per year then Buffalo. If you have something that proves it, please post it. Second, how can you legitimately compare snow levels of mountains that sit at 12k or higher in some cases to areas that sit only a few K above sea level? But lets talk about it, after doing some quick searching on the web, I have not found one city, including Denver that has reported that much snow over a winter. Lets continue to talk about High cities, if they get that kind of snow that you claim they do, why is it that they have to completely shut down, like Denver has had to do this year? They only had a few feet, over generally the same amount of time as what has hit NY, yet, NY hasn't shut down like Denver has. Want to know why? Becuase NY is used to getting snow like that ALL the time and is ALWAYS prepared for it. Areas like you mention DO NOT get snow like that and when they do get hit with a bad storm it is ALWAYS a problem. > First, I doubt seriously that Flagstaff averages more sound per year > then Buffalo. If you have something that proves it, please post it. Few people realize that AZ gets more snow than most eastern cities. Furthermore, cities in eastern AZ get significantly more than Flagstaff. Per NOAA Flagstaff 100.3", Buffalo 93.6" http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/snowfall.html > Second, how can you legitimately compare snow levels of mountains that > sit at 12k or higher in some cases to areas that sit only a few K > above sea level? Who said anything about 12K? None the less the western cities that get yearly snow ARE in the mountains. > Lets continue to talk about High cities, if they get that kind of snow > that you claim they do, why is it that they have to completely shut > down, like Denver has had to do this year? Denver did not shut down. The airport did. Eastern cities come to a halt with little more than a foot or two of snow. DC is a classic example. > They only had a few feet, > over generally the same amount of time as what has hit NY, yet, NY > hasn't shut down like Denver has. What??? The airports in the NY area were shutdown. The reason Denver's airport shutdown became national news is because it was over a holiday high traffic period and Denver is a major hub airport. > Want to know why? Becuase NY is used to getting snow like that ALL > the time and is ALWAYS prepared for it They do not. Buffalo and vicinity averages only 93" over an entire winter season. They are not used to 9 feet in a couple day period at all. > > I would like to see your proof as to where in Cali or Colo that they get 9' > > of snow? Don't say in the mountains because if you do, you are comparing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > towns. No comparison to the west there either. Hell, even Flagstaff, > AZ. averages more snow than Buffalo, NY. Oh, here we go, extracted from http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ online/ccd/snowfall.html DATA THROUGH 2002 YRS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN FLAGSTAFF, AZ 44 20.4 18.4 22.0 9.9 1.7 T T 0.0 0.1 2.0 9.9 15.9 100.3 DENVER, CO 61 8.1 7.5 12.5 8.9 1.6 0.0 T T 1.6 3.7 9.1 7.3 60.3 BUFFALO, NY 59 24.0 17.7 12.5 3.2 0.2 T T T T 0.3 11.4 24.3 93.6 Ironically enough, here are two that blow your claims to snow levels out of the water, though they also make NY look weak too. VALDEZ, AK 31 66.3 58.4 52.3 22.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 12.1 39.6 72.4 326.0 YAKUTAT, AK 54 37.6 37.7 36.3 16.4 1.5 T 0.0 T T 5.6 22.0 38.2 195.3 > Oh, here we go, extracted from http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ > online/ccd/snowfall.html Note that Flagstaff averages more snow than Denver or Buffalo. Yes I know about Valdez as my brother lives there and has a snowcat to get around! In California places like Twin Lakes, Soda Springs, and Mammoth Lakes all average over 400" a year. > DATA THROUGH 2002 > YRS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > YAKUTAT, AK 54 37.6 37.7 36.3 16.4 > 1.5 T 0.0 T T 5.6 22.0 38.2 195.3 > Oh, here we go, extracted from http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ > online/ccd/snowfall.html My point was that on average the west averages far more snow than the east. Take a look at the ski areas which are all in the mountains in both the east and the west. The east has to rely on snow making for most areas and ski on hard pack and ice most of the time. Not so for most of the west. Alta, UT with it's 500" a year is tops!! > Data taken out of contex or data missing key pieces is worthless but you > knew that, right???? Yes I realize you toss out any data that doesn't support your claim that global warming is whats making it so cold and snowy. > What variance Miles???? The water temp or the air temp or both??? Hint for ya TBone. As the air temp goes up the water temp goes up but only if sustained and not just a week or two. It takes far longer with a deep lake. You still can't handle the fact that the water temp for Jan. and Feb. is right where it always is this time of year, 33-34F. You also fail to note that the same region was way below average temps last year (air). Was that global warming as well? Why hasn't Chicago or South Bend gotten 9 feet of snow? They've been rather warm this year. > What exactly does that have to do with this? Oh, that's right, not a damn > thing. Oh but it does. Lake Erie water temps do vary, Lake Ontario does not very much. If you understood why you wouldn't keep up your absurd claims. >>> Probably none as Global Warming prevented the lakes from freezing >>> over and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Erie has just recently froze over in late Jan, which is extremely odd > for being so late a freeze. The miles character making all the dumb statements knows nothing about lake effect and how it all works and what happens. Right, Ontario doesn't freeze over. Next thing that miles will claims is that he's the father of Anna Nicole's baby. >>>> Probably none as Global Warming prevented the lakes from freezing >>>> over and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Next thing that miles will claims is that he's the father of Anna Nicole's > baby. Hey why not? Everybody else seems to be claiming to be the father. Some refer to Miles as a big prick. He's certainly fuxked with a few mind's here. <BFG> > The miles character making all the dumb statements knows nothing about lake > effect and how it all works and what happens. Right, Ontario doesn't > freeze over. I see. Guess I'm wrong. The snow is the result of a lack of ice on Lake Ontario. Good grief you and TBone are hilarious!! > Next thing that miles will claims is that he's the father of Anna Nicole's > baby. Ya, I did her. She's ok but wasn't worth the money she paid me. >> The miles character making all the dumb statements knows nothing about >> lake effect and how it all works and what happens. Right, Ontario [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ya, I did her. She's ok but wasn't worth the money she paid me. Hmmm... she claimed the same about you. Said you were a little prick. <VBG> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.